Burka

[Mr Endon]

Is it demeaning towards women?
Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
Should it be the woman's prerogative?
If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?

This has been motivated by recent political developments, but I'm sure we can keep politics out of this discussion?

[ImaginaryFriend]

I am on the fence on this one. On the one hand i am very intimidated by not being able to see the persons face (anyone could be under there). On the other hand it is tha womans choice. But you dont need to wear that to be dressed modestly, and what does it matter if you are dressed in revealing clothes. That goes more to your fashion sense than your morals or character.

I suppose some people are forced by their families to wear it but hen even if it was banned for example those same people would just be forced to stay indoors by their families.

I certainly think no religion should have more right to open display than others. Basically if we are going to ban one type of religious display we should ban them all. Religion is what is in your heart not on your face or round your neck.

By the way i was assuming you meant the niqab (face covered as well). Am fine with headscarves its just like i said i prefer to see someones face :)

[Mr Endon]

ImaginaryFriend, you did well to assume that, I did mean the one that covered all over. Thanks for your input!

Also an issue I forgot to bring up has to do with security concerns. I've often thought about how easy it would be for some thief to dress up in a niqab and rob and mug people. This is but a stupid fantasy, but there could be a real issue behind this line of reasoning:

Does the impossibility to identify someone who's wearing a niqab pose a security risk, or at least logistic/bureaucratic problems when it comes to routine ID checks, recognition in CCTV tapes and the like?

[qimissung]

I think if it is actually the woman's choice, then I am fine with it.

[ImaginaryFriend]

I believe it has happened where men have dressed like this and robbed a jewellery shop but i cant be sure.

About it being the womans choice, like i said we can never be sure of that because of cultural pressure which may only happen in the minority of cases but is still hard to differentiate between this and free will.

Another aspect which comes to mind is that it widens social and cultural divide by making it blatantly obvious for all to see. I am not saying that everyone should conform but it still raises an interesting point for these times.

Security-wise it should definitely be banned, not because everyone who wears it is trying to hide something but because of the potential abuse of it by criminals. Unfortunately a small amount of people ruin things for everyone yet again...

[JBI]

Hmm, Franz Fanon's work on the subject seems to make sense in a colonial perspective, in relation to how Algiers viewed traditional garb as a form of resistance to French occupation but in an immigration perspective, it becomes difficult. The question is about modesty, as the religion itself, from what I understand, requires modest dress. In that sense then, the Burka's wearing implies that anything visible on a woman would be deemed as immodest - I.E. anything but the smallest touch of eye, and perhaps hands and maybe wrists. That I find problematic.

I'm against it - if someone, in my view, is under the belief that they are somehow disgusting, or shouldn't be looked at for whatever reason, then, quite frankly, somewhere along the lines there was some conditioning that I can't agree with.

[Chava]

This is an immensly complicated topic. Here in Denmark, in line with increasing racism, it seems to have taken great proportions. At this point, it is now forbidden for women wearing simply a hijab, the headscarf, to rule in court. This was decided as a young woman as the first managed to complete the degree, in spite of all odds. Ridiculous.
I think it is important to remember that the bhurka, Hijab, etc, are not just religious symbols, but also cultural. I would never wear one, but I do think it is important to allow women who wish to wear one that right. Instead of outlawing it, one can assist those whom find it difficult to stop wearing one for social or family related reasons.
While I'm atheist I think its silly to ban religious symbols, as they are a part of our cultures, and our religions, or non-religions are a part of who we are. Instead I would argue that society should put its time and money into teaching tolerance and informing about the benefits of multidiversity.

[TheFifthElement]

I think if it is actually the woman's choice, then I am fine with it.

Amen to that.

[MANICHAEAN]

I've worked in the Middle East for the last 15 years but must honestly say that because of the formal/cultural separation of the sexes it would be hard to get a first hand female's perspective on this subject
In Saudi its very strict, but then on occasion when flying out from the Kingdom to the UK, the speed with which the Saudi women change into Western dress once airborn is quite something.
In Iran, its quite strict in public, but then when invited to an Iranian's house for a meal, its quite normal to sit down with the wife without the burka & head scarf and hold a normal discussion face to face. Unheard of in Saudi hospitality, where you sit with the man only and then ask him to thank his wife for the nice meal.
I think that here in Qatar, they have found the right balance. Head scarfs, covered arms, sharp but modest dressing.
Not sure if that helps.

[virginiawang]

I was wonder when I read your post what a burka really looks like. If it includes a piece of veil that covers a woman's face and a long dress, it sounds like a pretty dress for women. However if it covers a woman's face with a piece of cloth, which spreads from a woman's head to her toes, it is horrible, and in opinion, degrading for women. Why will anyone want to conceal all women's faces for whatever reason that may have come to his head? If a religion teaches people to hurt someone's feelings, I am sure it is not a good religion, which only promulgates fatuous ideas.

[Mark F.]

I think if it is actually the woman's choice, then I am fine with it.

If I chose to walk around naked would you accept that?

[MANICHAEAN]

Virginiawang.
It would be interesting to know when the burka was first designed & the factors that determined its creation: protection from the sun, modesty, to stop men getting exicited?

Mark F
Non merci mon brave!

[virginiawang]

I still don't know whether it is a piece of veil or cloth that covers the face. That makes a great difference.

[MANICHAEAN]

My understanding is:
A burka is the Afgan full Monty (Head to toe, inclusive face)
An Abaya is the Middle East version, which can be with, or without covering the face).
A Chidora is the Iran equivalent to the Abaya.

[Stargazer86]

I see nothing wrong with anyone wearing something that represents thier religion. Especially if, as in the case with a burka, that religion encompasses a culture and lifestyle.

Wearing a burka is not (in my opinion) demeaning to women so long as it's the woman's choice. If it's just part of her lifestyle and she does no feel it is degrading at all, why should anyone else see it as such? What I see as degrading to women is the treatment of some of them in certain regions where Islam is largely practiced. Certainly not all women are treated badly. Islam seems to carry this stigma of mysogeny and violence that is not applicable to many practicing Muslims.

I'm not familiar enough with the treatment of women in Afghanistan. I know what I've heard, but when there's a war and such a cultural divide, it is hard to seperate fact from propaganda/paranoia. So I would be out of place making an overall judgement on it.

Mani- Thank you for your discriptions and explination...that was very interesting. I was wondering though, you said a chidora is the Iranian equivalent to the abaya; is it exactly the same thing but just named differently, or is there an actual difference between the two?

Chava- I fully agree with you that it is silly to try and ban religious icons. I think that is a total violation of personal freedoms. And where would it end? How can you tell one person not to wear a hajib, but it's okay for someone else to wear a crucifix? Then you'd have to start banning turbans, the red dot, saris, stars of david etcetc
I'm not religious myself (I'm agnostic) but I do not get offended in the slightest at seeing others' religious icons. My issue is when its pushed on me (but that's a different topic altogether)

[Virgil]

According to Google Images this is a burka.

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/03/Burka.jpg

If it's their choice I have no problem either, but really we should move on from this. I can't see why it would be their choice. But to each his/her own.

On a separate note, I find the hajib (head scarf) quite nice. There is a sense of decency and modesty and yet elegance to it.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2009/01/16/Hajib_gallery__396x400.jpg

[MANICHAEAN]

Stargazer. Same thing, different name.
Getting slightly away from the outward garb, I've always been interested in how one determines, (if thats the right word), ones religion. Some have it from childhood, presumably introduced by their family and stay comfortably with it. Others at a later stage question either their initial religion or even religion itself. Some adopt rather exotic beliefs far away from their initial formal spiritual awareness. Yet others make the break completely and then somewhere in their lives cross the road and take up their original faith. At the end of the day is it: logic, instinct or returning back to the comfort of childhood memories?

[Nightshade]

Right I am going to work this a bit backwards. First just to put it in context I wear a hijab. I choose to wea on and no one in my immediate family ( Mum and sisters) wear one anymore.
I have posted pictures before of the whole regialia including NIquabs which I suppose woul be similar to the burka, it doesnt come all in one place as the burka does but it comes a seperate piece. that wraps around the head or is attached by an elastic band. it can cover or show the eyes depending on how it is worn.

Now I have worn Abayas atr times. Mostly it should be admited when I was feeling increadibly lazy ( i have some nice egyptian galabiyah ag=bayahs in denimn and multiculours that are kind of a kaftan dress thiong that goes over your clothes. Or when I was dressed up to the nines for a ladies only do. It means I can wear whatever I want under it and dont have to wear long sleeves and trousers/skirts. if I don't feel like it.

I have even worn a Niquab once or twice but that is under extreme ciricumstances were by I had coloured contacts in and and ful face make up. And it was in Saudi Arabia.
Now in truth my views as the the hijab are controvetial and unorthdox. I do not belive you have to wear one. I believe it is completly cultural. The word you will probably hear most often when you ask a muslim is 'protection'. Its a bit wierd but I think the idea is identifying yourself culturally as part of a certain group means that anyone else of the same group whoi sees you and knows who you are is therby duty bound to help you- if you need it. And I will admit I got loads of freebies in Manchester simply because I was identifyable as a muslim and store owners just gave me drink free a coouple of times, or said you know what have it now and pay next time you come round. For me personally it makes following the other rules of the religion easier. I am the kind of person who given an inch would take a mile so I knew when I came to England I would be keeping my headscarf . Plus its so much a part of me now I feel naked going out without it. So for me I see it as a matter of choice and Protection agaist temptation.
I might add the christians and Jews both had a form of headscarf in earlier religious days. My Catholic grandmother still wears a scarf to church.


I am on the fence on this one. On the one hand i am very intimidated by not being able to see the persons face (anyone could be under there). On the other hand it is tha womans choice. But you dont need to wear that to be dressed modestly, and what does it matter if you are dressed in revealing clothes. That goes more to your fashion sense than your morals or character.

I suppose some people are forced by their families to wear it but hen even if it was banned for example those same people would just be forced to stay indoors by their families.

I certainly think no religion should have more right to open display than others. Basically if we are going to ban one type of religious display we should ban them all. Religion is what is in your heart not on your face or round your neck.

By the way i was assuming you meant the niqab (face covered as well). Am fine with headscarves its just like i said i prefer to see someones face :)

I have to say I dont really like the niquab I like to be able to see other peoples faces too much. Intrestingly Face covering is banned on the pilgramigge unless you have a face that is so heart stoppingly breath takingly beautifully distracting that your face would interfeer with other people's concentration. And if you think you can justify that then you a full of pride and vanity so you can't wera it.



I'm against it - if someone, in my view, is under the belief that they are somehow disgusting, or shouldn't be looked at for whatever reason, then, quite frankly, somewhere along the lines there was some conditioning that I can't agree with.

The idea of the hijab the modesty etc is all tied into beauty rather than disgust . The more beautiful you are the more you cover up.
Which is why in places lie Egypt the older women when they get to about 60 will stop weraing teh hijab because they say they are hardly going to be what is the word... not attrative or alluring . The literal word goes something along the lines of fantasy enducing. The idea is ( and by the way although it is very rarly seen there is a male equivelent basically waist to just under the knee should be covered in baggy clothes) if you delibritly dress in an enticing ( thats the word) manner then you get double sins. The person who sees you and and has 'improper' thoughts gets their sins and as a prover you get your sins and theirs added. So the modest clothes issue comes into play. The quarantic vesre uses the words beauty, ornamnets and bosoms. The hijab is an extentipon of it. And I suppose the womans crowning glory idea.



In Saudi its very strict, but then on occasion when flying out from the Kingdom to the UK, the speed with which the Saudi women change into Western dress once airborn is quite something.
:lol: I have to laugh about that its one of my mums favourite anicdotes of the first two years she worked iun the middle east.
I have to say though have been born there I think that in KSA, its much more a cultural thing then in anyway related to religion. OH I know that it is tided in but the country was noting but desert and wondering tribes just over 100 years ago, and really the Abbayiah, thoab and gutrah were all around long before islam and the tribes inspite of the change in religion they clung to them. Nowadays it may seem odd to the rest of the world but I think its one of the those tghings that is fine is Saudi but if they choose to remove it the minute they leave tan that is excersisnt their choice isnt it?



I think that here in Qatar, they have found the right balance. Head scarfs, covered arms, sharp but modest dressing.
Thats kind of the way I wera it though I would never say I am a sharp dresser.



1)Is it demeaning towards women?
2)Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
3)Should it be the woman's prerogative?
4)If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
5)Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?
?

1) Only if people view it in a deeming light IMO. IT can be empowering just as much as deemening I think it has a lot to do with the womans opinions and those around her. If its orcedthen of course its deemeing espeiclaly if viewed as a away of putting women down or as a tool to deemen women. whihc it can be. But then most things can be. I have heard argumnets about how modern fashion is deemieng. How models, magazines like elle Hello and Ok are all demeening I guess its the eye of the beholder and the doer.

2) As long as it is breaking not any laws and its not ( especially in a contect wher one hasd imigrated serverly interfeering with the ability of the weraer to accept the culture into which they are trying to meld then yes. Tolerance works more that just one way.

3)If you ban one kind of religios symbol then yes by all means ban them all. I think its worng in general to ban any ones expression of such a large part of their identity as religion. Then again if the shcool is the type that cracks doen on any self expression like dyed hair and body piercings/art then perhaps if you want to look at all the students as a body completlyt equally it is an issue that needs looking into harder.
Of course you will still have to allow the students to pray which would still mean differenciating between the main body. Although multifaith/quiet rooms are fairly genericly unreligious. But if there is no enforce uyniform () or at like post 16 education then I think the teenagers are ( by post 16 eduation) to make up their own midns about their religion and beliefs and how they chooce to demonstrate/affirm/declare and generally p[ractise and outwardly share. I think liitle kids are too young to wear a hijab or burkah or niquiab. Having said that I did start weariung a hijab at 12 and a few months but I was wearing it in a middle eastern country and every other girl in my class was already wearing one and I decided to wear one too. All the wrong reasons but I have found right to keep wearing it. So I do so and now I am older I see the point of the teachers my mum and the rest of my family who tried to oppose me weraing it.


!

Also an issue I forgot to bring up has to do with security concerns. I've often thought about how easy it would be for some thief to dress up in a niqab and rob and mug people. This is but a stupid fantasy, but there could be a real issue behind this line of reasoning:

Does the impossibility to identify someone who's wearing a niqab pose a security risk, or at least logistic/bureaucratic problems when it comes to routine ID checks, recognition in CCTV tapes and the like?

Despite what ity looks liek niqabs are fairly flimsy thgings never actually been close enough to a burka to look at it properly, but with teh way national securiuty sissues are nowadays ( and on a uk note with theintroduction of the mandatory national id card including 16 points of dna recogntion and an iris scan) not being able to see most of your face shouldnt be an issue for software.
Actually I rember an old black and white egyptian film forem the days before the fall of the Ottman empoire (pre 1952 this is where face covers and abayah were mandatory by law in areas of egypt) the bank robber escapes dressed as a woman. only to be shot by a woman who realsies that he is moving right under the stuff.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear Nightshade
Sincere thanks. That was very informative.
Glad you got a chuckle from the Saudia Airline female exodus ritual!

[LMK]

Is it demeaning towards women?
Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
Should it be the woman's prerogative?
If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?

This has been motivated by recent political developments, but I'm sure we can keep politics out of this discussion?

This is a matter of choices. If a woman chooses to live in a place or attend school in a place where certain restrictions exist then yes they should abide by those restrictions (certainly while trying to change them if so inclined). However if there is no restriction and the ban or restriction is random and singles out only religious types of expressions in dress then no, I do not agree.

If symbols are to be banned or restricted simply because they are religious, then sports charms, slogans; bands or music tastes, etc. among other categories should be included as well.

~L

[Taliesin]

I understand that besides the problems with identity, the main issue is protecting the women from their families etc - that wearing it might not be really voluntary for them.
If they were banned from schools and similar institutions, however, what seems problematic to me is how would one enforce it? I mean, if someone broke the rule and wore a burka and was punished for it they would be either a)someone who willingly chose it so punishing her would seem quite undemocratic - government chooses what you wear even though, in this persons case, it doesn't hurt anyone
or
b)someone who was forced to do it by her family - therefore it was not her fault

[LMK]

Absolutely there is a problem with around the world in places that lack egalitarian treatment of women even by their families.

Women who are imprisoned for adultry for being raped! Of course the burka is thrust upon many who might choose otherwise.

My response was solely a hypothetical reply to a general set of questions about opinions where a woman's choice is an option.

I fully understand that there are places where there is no choice and no option.

~L

[Nightshade]

I understand that besides the problems with identity, the main issue is protecting the women from their families etc - that wearing it might not be really voluntary for them.
If they were banned from schools and similar institutions, however, what seems problematic to me is how would one enforce it? I mean, if someone broke the rule and wore a burka and was punished for it they would be either a)someone who willingly chose it so punishing her would seem quite undemocratic - government chooses what you wear even though, in this persons case, it doesn't hurt anyone
or
b)someone who was forced to do it by her family - therefore it was not her fault

Well to play the otherside the easiest way of reinforcing is just to take it off someone who comes into a school wearing one. Of course then you come into conflict with protecction laws. when I was 5 or 6 ( and in saudi arabia) the school regulations stated that your nails had to be so short that they dont cover the tips of your fingers. Its prefferable if ther is no white edge showing at all. My nails grow at a ridicuolus rate and one day my mum had been too busy to cut my nails. and we had an inspection the next day. I was dragged into the headmistress's room held down ( to stop me flincching and hurting myself) by two teachers who used these massive craft scissors to hack off my nails. My mum was actually a teacher but she was only told fait accompli as it were. My nails were only just covering the edge of my fingers.
I still have to cut my fingernails two or three times a week becsuse I can't stand and can't function when they are longer.
Obviously that wouldnt happen in the 'western school' system. but if you relly want to inforce it that is going to have to be the way its done. Holding them down and pull it off. In the eyes of alot of people who wear the burkas then its kind of one and the same. Brutally stampng all over their rights ( their opinion rather than mine) so physically assultng them to seperate them is par the course. And I suppose that once physical forcce is threatend the little islamic getout clause becomes valid and then they can take it off.

[IJustMadeThatUp]

I don't have a problem with people's clothes choices, but it does make me uncomfortable trying to talk to somebody when I can't see their face. That's my problem though isn't it?

[weltanschauung]

I think if it is actually the woman's choice, then I am fine with it.

its NOT choice. its absolutely imposed. and women who dont wear it where they are expected to are punished harshly if not with death.
its ridiculous, mysoginistic, arbitrary, humiliating, but that is exactly the purpose it serves: to ridicule, diminish, submit and humiliate women, so that they wont "tempt" the poor pure men with their "devilish beauties" and "attractives".

[Nightshade]

its NOT choice. its absolutely imposed. and women who dont wear it where they are expected to are punished harshly if not with death.
its ridiculous, mysoginistic, arbitrary, humiliating, but that is exactly the purpose it serves: to ridicule, diminish, submit and humiliate women, so that they wont "tempt" the poor pure men with their "devilish beauties" and "attractives".

I think you are generalising a bit there. Sure it can on occasion be used as a tool to demeen women ( but then most things can) but it definatly can be a choice and by saying it cant you are belittling the women who freely choose to wear it and are proud of the fact they do.

[weltanschauung]

i think not. and i dont think anyone is proud of being humiliated, but they are taught and obliged to believe they are. they dont wear it because its a choice, they wear it because it is required by their "religion" (men).

[Lady Otter]

Sorry for those that disagree, but when believing men wear burkas, too, just maybe, I'd be convinced women might also. The image of men wearing those crippling togs is reminiscent of Chinese women with bound feet.

I've read the Koran, it is quite respectful of women...This is clearly a tribal discussion.

[Niamh]

Welt, in many cases the wearing of a Burka is Cultural, and not religious. And as Nightie pointed out many women do choose to wear them. Yes many are also made to because thats the culture of their homeland. It is not the case for ALL!

[weltanschauung]

but niamh, i understand that, the thing is that it is not the point. it doesnt matter whether it is cultural or religious or whatever the hell, you know? what matters is the reason behind the tradition. and the reason is that women are seen as evil because they inspire feelings of lust in men, therefore they are required to hide themselves in order not to tempt men, you understand what im saying?
the burka is not a tradition because women dont want to tan, or because it makes you cooler under it in a 50degrees celsius weather. it is required so that women are hiden from men's eyes, in order "not to tempt them". the reason behind the tradition is the need to humiliate women in order to submit them.
and it really isnt a fashion choice. theres nothing to do with fashion.

[Nightshade]

That ISNT why they are tradtional. The real reaosn they are tradtional is they are more common sense in the desert especially in olden times. If you think about it on the arab piniusula, most men ( well natives anyway) also cover their heads. and the badoui men also cover their faces in a lot of cases Ive heard of. ITt minimusises chances of dehydration. That other reasons were added to this and that it because seen as a symbol of muslim women is completly secondary if you want to go into the real reason its tradtional.

[weltanschauung]

nightshade, there's no way anyone will ever convince me that a burka is used to prevent dehydration http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/21.gif
but hey, whatever floats your boat, some like to live in denial to have a better night of sleep.

[LMK]

I also do not think (at least I hope not) that fundamentally the reason for the burka is that muslim women are secondary. I understood that it was because they were special that they would be seen only by family and perhaps very close friends of the family.

This is not too unlike orthodox Jewish women who cover hair after marriage, with a wig, a scarf, snood, etc. not to make them ugly or to make them secondary, but to preserve modesty.

~L

[Mr Endon]

Thank you very much for the great discussion. Sorry, I haven't been here for a while, but dissertation + internetlessness is a deadly combination.

I would really like to defend the dressing of a burka (or niqab, or whatever it is called: I mean the one that only leaves the eyes uncovered) in a country like France, but I can't bring myself to. Here's why: imagine someone goes naked to the street. That can't be. Why? Because our culture says it is inappropriate. Our culture also says that men and women should be equal. The idea behind the burka is that woman is inferior to man, and thus wearing it, be it through choice or not, propagates this idea.

My time's almost up, I'll write it more clearly later, Thor willing. But do you see what I mean? And tell me why I'm wrong, for I'm sure I'm wrong, and yet, and yet.

[Nightshade]

So wait endon do you want a defnece for face covering in western countries? I am not totally for it myself but I can say this, the only pointy you could really go for is that cultures change and adapt 100 years ago men and womend were NOT equal, the clothes we wera to day would be concidered indecent etc. By adopting people into your culture the culture both sides should give and alter. The culture that is accepting them should begin to show signs of multiculturalism and the people being adopted should be understand accpting and willing to bend with the culture they seek to join.
I think the main fear within muslim communities is when you give someothing they will take a mile. SO say you say no face cover, next it will be no headcover.. etc. Frankly I don't see how they can ban head covers though unless they went whole hog and banned all religios symbols.

[LMK]

This is the point that I tried to make only a couple of posts ago, perhaps I should delve deeper.

First, our culture (US) does not require hair covering (not head, but hair) yet married Jewish woman who practice Tzniut, do all over the US and the world. It is a choice, but for all who I know a meaningful one and for the most part wigs are worn so that you don't even know.

Second, our culture does not require tattos or body piercing, but allows it, not out of religious freedom, but a persons freedom of self expression.

Believe it or not in the small town, where I live, in the middle of the US and there are many muslim women (and younger girls) who dress modestly (usually wide legged trousers and tunics or floor length dresses and always with the hijab;head and neck scarf).

If it is their choice, I support them.

I certainly hope that the government will not get into my life to the point of telling me, "this is not what everyone else is wearing, so you can't wear it." What's next, our hair cuts? Will we be wearing uniforms?

I've actually thought some of the pant suits were attractive, so if I chose to wear them, it would have nothing to do with religion.

It would not surprise me to see a woman walk down the street in a burka. Sure at first people would look because it is unusual and we would like to get to know what is new to us, but then...hmph...whatever so there are burka's floating down the sidewalk.

As long as it is by choice I stand behind the wearer's right to wear it, for religious purposes, modesty, embarassment, or whatever other reason compelled the wearer to the choice.

~L

[weltanschauung]

This is the point that I tried to make only a couple of posts ago, perhaps I should delve deeper.

First, our culture (US) does not require hair covering (not head, but hair) yet married Jewish woman who practice Tzniut, do all over the US and the world. It is a choice, but for all who I know a meaningful one and for the most part wigs are worn so that you don't even know.

Second, our culture does not require tattos or body piercing, but allows it, not out of religious freedom, but a persons freedom of self expression.

Believe it or not in the small town, where I live, in the middle of the US and there are many muslim women (and younger girls) who dress modestly (usually wide legged trousers and tunics or floor length dresses and always with the hijab;head and neck scarf).

If it is their choice, I support them.

I certainly hope that the government will not get into my life to the point of telling me, "this is not what everyone else is wearing, so you can't wear it." What's next, our hair cuts? Will we be wearing uniforms?

I've actually thought some of the pant suits were attractive, so if I chose to wear them, it would have nothing to do with religion.

It would not surprise me to see a woman walk down the street in a burka. Sure at first people would look because it is unusual and we would like to get to know what is new to us, but then...hmph...whatever so there are burka's floating down the sidewalk.

As long as it is by choice I stand behind the wearer's right to wear it, for religious purposes, modesty, embarassment, or whatever other reason compelled the wearer to the choice.

~L

i dont really think its their choice, because their families require that they follow tradition, tradition which had its genesis back when they where in ziniguistan or whatever the hell. and the origin of the tradition also bothers me, because with no exceptions, all traditions are mysogenous, and they are all based in that little lovely passege of the bible that says that eve corrupted adam and thats why our world sucks now.
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

[Nightshade]

i dont really think its their choice, because their families require that they follow tradition, tradition which had its genesis back when they where in ziniguistan or whatever the hell. and the origin of the tradition also bothers me, because with no exceptions, all traditions are mysogenous, and they are all based in that little lovely passege of the bible that says that eve corrupted adam and thats why our world sucks now.
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

Are you saying all society traditions in the world are based on the bible? The only logical way I can see that happening ( and concidering you disavowed believig in God and/or The abrahamic cannon of religions I highly doubt this is what you are getting it) is that if that story was true. That is Adam and eve were true butmore importantly if teh Flood was true and that from that time everyone had a single base tradtion from whihc they evolved.
On the other side, the different abrahamic religions have diffirent theories or rather versions of the Fall from Eden story. And significantly for this thread the islamic version does NOT blame Eve in anyway. It says they got the idea at the same time and ate the apples at the same time, and that they were both idiots for not thinking before acting and letting themselves be swayed by greed and suggestion.

[billl]

wow, thanks for the interesting info nightshade! i've been skimming over this thread--thanks for your views.

i personally think the burka is a bit much, once someone is at the level where they can do business at a bank, or drive a car--but i'm willing to go along with the whole modesty thing in theory, kind of. but the hijab can be quite fetching, actually--no need to outlaw that...

[LMK]

True, there are places and situations where no choice is involved and that is not what I understood the thread to be addressing. If I am mistaken and we are being asked for opinions about another cultures' decisions to perpetuate what we (who are not apart of that culture) deem as degrading or demeaning, unnecessary or without good cause, then we are sticking our noses in someone else's underwear drawer. I do not know what it is like to live in such a culture and have no foundation from which to formulate an opinion without much more information.

The topic, as I understood it, is if when there is a choice involved should it be allowed?

My response to that is...yes, if it is a choice made by the wearer.

[weltanschauung]

Are you saying all society traditions in the world are based on the bible? The only logical way I can see that happening ( and concidering you disavowed believig in God and/or The abrahamic cannon of religions I highly doubt this is what you are getting it) is that if that story was true. That is Adam and eve were true butmore importantly if teh Flood was true and that from that time everyone had a single base tradtion from whihc they evolved.
On the other side, the different abrahamic religions have diffirent theories or rather versions of the Fall from Eden story. And significantly for this thread the islamic version does NOT blame Eve in anyway. It says they got the idea at the same time and ate the apples at the same time, and that they were both idiots for not thinking before acting and letting themselves be swayed by greed and suggestion.

ocidental ones, yes, with no doubt. every culture has been scared with it at one point or another. this is way off-topic but, the christian religions dont really rely on the historicity of events, and the bible is a collection of vague parables assembled together in a frankenstein manner by the the church, and jesus is just another character in that book, inspired in many other cultures' myths. you say the abrahamic religions have different versions of the fall from eden story, well, i have the quoran but i never read it whole cause its huge and boring, clockwork orange chanting, but i cant contest what youre saying because you could be right since im not sure. HOWEVER, what i see happening everyday in the muslim world is FAR from the egalitarian situation you describe in their holy texts, which ironically deny completely what their holy book preaches. so in any case, as theory is often something pretty to look at (the big brother maybe), but not to put into practice, much like constitution, i'll stick to my opinion that burka and all its manifestations are traditions perpectualized to degrade and diminish women, with its genesis at primeval male chauvinism sexual projection.

[Nightshade]

OK not to be rude or anything but I am seriously getting bored with this discussion as it isn't really going anywhere at the moment. So we will agree to disagree as to the implication inherent in hijab, burka and all.
:D

[weltanschauung]

fine by me.

[Taliesin]

Thank you very much for the great discussion. Sorry, I haven't been here for a while, but dissertation + internetlessness is a deadly combination.

I would really like to defend the dressing of a burka (or niqab, or whatever it is called: I mean the one that only leaves the eyes uncovered) in a country like France, but I can't bring myself to. Here's why: imagine someone goes naked to the street. That can't be. Why? Because our culture says it is inappropriate. Our culture also says that men and women should be equal. The idea behind the burka is that woman is inferior to man, and thus wearing it, be it through choice or not, propagates this idea.

My time's almost up, I'll write it more clearly later, Thor willing. But do you see what I mean? And tell me why I'm wrong, for I'm sure I'm wrong, and yet, and yet.

Damn the hypocritical society that says that men and women should be equal and yet frowns when men wear skirts!

What I mean is that the norms of the general Western civilization quite often clash at some points - on one hand, yes, the burka might give out a signal going against the equality of men and women -on the other hand, our culture (at least some more progressive parts of it) say that people should be able to dress however they like.
So saying that this or this is a no-no, since it goes against this norm/idea/principle of our society isn't a good argument, since perhaps there are some other norms that commend the thing.

[Niamh]

Damn the hypocritical society that says that men and women should be equal and yet frowns when men wear skirts!



not at all men. ;) There are of course exceptions.

[LMK]

It comes down to manners...what happened to those pesky things. When we had manners we did not point out that what someone was wearing didn't look right...because it wasn't our business to.

Respect others, respect yourselves and understand that some are without the power to make choices for themselves. We should not condemn them for this, but rather continue to offer support and respect.

My last two cents, I agree with Nightshade I think this topic is done for now.

~L

[Mr Endon]

Damn the hypocritical society that says that men and women should be equal and yet frowns when men wear skirts!

What I mean is that the norms of the general Western civilization quite often clash at some points - on one hand, yes, the burka might give out a signal going against the equality of men and women -on the other hand, our culture (at least some more progressive parts of it) say that people should be able to dress however they like.
So saying that this or this is a no-no, since it goes against this norm/idea/principle of our society isn't a good argument, since perhaps there are some other norms that commend the thing.

Point taken. I'm quite aware of the clash, hence my mental disarray. But have you considered that Human Rights are arranged in a hierarchy? By this a judge I know means that 'freedom to wear what you like' is less important that 'equality between men and women'.

I do not wish to pursue this argument, but it's worth a thought.

I don't believe that criminalising the wearing of the burka in the West is ever going to do any good. My solution would be to educate muslim children about the Koran (London has opened such a facility, the Courrier International tells me). The funny thing is, the burka is not mentioned in the Koran at all. Also, tell them that the idea underlining the burka is that women are temptation personified and ought to be covered so that men are decent.

(by the way, the idea that they impose the burka because their women are 'special' is for me like saying that the wardens keep the prisoners locked up in jail because they are special)

So.
No criminalisation, but education.
Problem solved! I can trouble my mind with more inane matters now.

[Pensive]

Seriously I can't really understand how allowing burqa goes against the equality of men and women. When a woman is in burqa it doesn't necessarily mean she has been forced to wear it.

Burqa being a hindrance in some specific careers (like teaching young children where facial expressions are necessary) is another topic of debate though. I just have trouble digesting this equality-inequality argument.

[weltanschauung]

its hard to discuss a problem when everyone keeps trying to deny that the problem exists.

[Zee.]

Is it a problem?

[Mr Endon]

limajean, it is. I'll give you an extreme example, for which I'm sure to be burned at the stake for demagogy but which illustrates well what I mean: imagine someone using a KKK costume, perhaps even not having an idea what it stands for.

Pensive, for me it's simple to get at the conclusion that it stands for unequality of women.
First you must observe the following: men don't wear it, only women do.
Then you must ask yourself, why must women wear like this?
Then you must see what happens if a girl wears a short skirt and a tank top in a theocratic country. What happens is that the moral police come and (let's leave the executions out of this) tell them it's inappropriate.
Why is that? Because it tempts men who are trying to be virtuous and could use without the distractions.
Women are not seen as equals. A cursory look at the holy text and laws tells you that much. For example, why can a man indulge in polygyny and a woman can't? Why must the woman not address other man unless she is spoken to (this one I'm not sure of though)? Also, I'd reccommend you to look at Qur'an, 4:34, where man's superiority is explicit. (Not that the Old Testament's any better in that respect). And the burqa is just the right garment to embody this mindset.

A burqa, or whatever you might call it, is thus a symbol of modesty, and it is basically enforced by the culture so that that vicious, troublesome thing, female sexuality, may be harnessed.

I wouldn't ban it, I wouldn't. But of course I would be allowed to judge if I saw someone dressed like that in say my home country. My assumption would be merely this, that she thinks herself inferior to men - which she, no doubt, does. And it would sadden me, of course, to see that in my home country. I would think of a whole century of suffragette movement, of virtuous struggle for equality, being flushed down the drain, or at least contemptuously dismissed by them.

[papayahed]

Has anybody read Nighties posts?

[Mr Endon]

Well I did at the time they were written, but I don't remember her having answered directly this question. I'm sure she must have, though. Right now I don't have the time to read through the thread carefully, so Nightshade, if you could give me a succint rebuttal of the idea that burkas are a symbol of male superiority over women I'd appreciate it. I understand it if you don't have time for that as well, in which case I'll have to come back and read this more carefully later and perhaps my point of view will be different then.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Posts that do not directly deal with the issue at hand

or

show intolerance/disrespect towards others' beliefs will be deleted without further notice.

[Saladin]

This were actually a very interesting discussion. As a muslim i find this discussion actually for being a bit irrelevant since there is nothing in islamic scriptures which actually says a muslim women should wear burqa. Most of what i would probably write have already been written by Nighshade, ergo i agree with her.

Its not mandatory at all for muslim womens to use burqa nor niqaab. The last garment depends on which madhab (islamic school of thought) the person follows.

Hijab is according most muslim clerics mandatory - but that is when the the girl reach puberty - becomes a woman. And it shouldnt be forced on the individual at any circumstances. The women must choose freely to wear hijab. Since in islam every religious act is based on the individuals intentions. If you force individuals to be "more" pious it will be stupidity since there is lack of intentions.


Is it a problem?

Not necessarily. as long its a free choice. The problem is when people get forced to wear it like Taliban and some other religious nutcase groups have done (mostly islamists)/

But then again to be honest i havent personally even though i have lived in the West most of my life seen a muslim women wearing a burqa. I have seen niqaab, but not burka. Its over-exaggerated.

[Whifflingpin]

"The idea of the hijab the modesty etc is all tied into beauty rather than disgust . The more beautiful you are the more you cover up.
Which is why in places lie Egypt the older women when they get to about 60 will stop weraing teh hijab because they say they are hardly going to be what is the word... not attrative or alluring ."

This seems a bit odd to me. It is like turning all the good paintings to the wall and having only the bad ones on view. I cannot believe that beautiful people are harmed in any way by being seen, or that anyone can be harmed by seeing something beautiful. Of course, if beauty is seen as a commodity, a possession, then the possessor is entitled to ration it out - but that seems pretty mean, since the beauty does not diminish however many people view it.

[Nightshade]

so Nightshade, if you could give me a succint rebuttal of the idea that burkas are a symbol of male superiority over women I'd appreciate it. .
It is really too complex a thing to be succinct about but the main points are :

1) choosing to take 'the veil' ( hijab included ) does not represent subduction or oppression it represents putting aside childhood and accepting responsibility and a place in society as a coherent sound in mind and body able to have opinions voice them and that they in turn count member of society. It symbolise that a woman is old enough to control her own money and affairs as well as to marry. Boys in Islam are not that lucky, there is no defining symbol of adulthood no big right of passage ( well that I know of but having no brothers I don't know maybe I am missing something?) Someone is going to now bring up the fact that they have seen children wearing hijabs, yes I know its weird and I cant get my head around it or find any form of justification for it except maybe the fact that the idea is if you get them used to wearing it THAT you they dont feel the burden of it so much as they get older, mind I think that is defeating the object of the whole point of the exercise, but like Ive said before its more cultural than religious anyways.

2) Its really very culturally rooted one of those bizarre habits that make no real sense to outsiders but makes perfect sense to the participants ( and really that is all that matters most of the time, or at least till they up an take their habits into other peoples house then the upsets begin) Male superiority doesnt come into it. Thats a pretty feminist- post feminist Idea, and you cant use one cultures norms to measure another. It cant be done and I wouldn't even bother trying.





This seems a bit odd to me. It is like turning all the good paintings to the wall and having only the bad ones on view. I cannot believe that beautiful people are harmed in any way by being seen, or that anyone can be harmed by seeing something beautiful. Of course, if beauty is seen as a commodity, a possession, then the possessor is entitled to ration it out - but that seems pretty mean, since the beauty does not diminish however many people view it.

Like I said its a very culturally centric view and even then not everyone n the culture shares it, but that was the main idea of the thing 1420 odd years ago. And ok I was skirting one of the main points I want to say first though though it is alot less obvious the same rules apply for men and the hijab as said before is an add on the existed in the arbian culture before isalm. The modesty thing? and hiding your beauties thing? It really boils down to one simple rule Do not deliberately try and tempt people (male or female) so you are no supposed to go around in skin tight clothes baring all manner of skin. . Some people took this to an extreme ( much the way of Victorians and table legs) and decided mean were tempted by everything so lets just cover the lot up to be on the safe side. Because the rest of the rule goes, you deliberately try and get someones i don't know what the right word is here sexual attention (??) and they are not married to you , then you are getting double sin points. But like asiad though most people conveniently forget it the rule also applied to men very much so.

Anyway what I have been trying to say all along is that I never said it couldnt be used as a tool against women I am just saying that most everything can, but that in its proper application it isnt and shouldnt be seen as such. I mean hello how is dressing like a page 3 model not demeening? but thats ok because its obvious that its her choice so why is a hijab or even a niquab any different.

[weltanschauung]

a sign of female adulthood is hiding your face, your body, your hair?



bizarre habits that make no real sense to outsiders but makes perfect sense to the participants. (...) Male superiority doesnt come into it.

it makes sense, who said it doesnt. it makes perfect sense.
women are supposed to, in adulthood, hide themselves in order not to tempt men, because they are too pure. it has nothing to do with male superiority, in fact. it has to do with inferiority, since they cant control their ravishing desire for women.
makes perfect sense.

lets all hide ourselves under burkas so we wont be raped. lets lock ourselves in our houses so we wont be robbed. lets not drive so that people wont crash into our cars, lets not get jobs so we wont get fired. i see this logic.

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2009/06/muslim-day-at-beach-300x190.jpg

http://worldblog.beechwindpress.com/images/burkas.jpg



Anyway what I have been trying to say all along is that I never said it couldnt be used as a tool against women I am just saying that most everything can, but that in its proper application it isnt and shouldnt be seen as such. I mean hello how is dressing like a page 3 model not demeening? but thats ok because its obvious that its her choice so why is a hijab or even a niquab any different.

there is no proper aplication for "traditions" of this sort. And it is and should be seen as such.
dressing like a page 3 model is not demeaning because she LOVES doing so and is getting paid for it also.
eating brocolis is a choice, not covering your SELF.

[Nightshade]

And you are precluding the fact that most hijab wearers LOVE wearing a hijab and that many niqab wearers feel the same.

And I am not going down the road of western perception of vs Eastern/ middle eastern perception, Global imperialism and the infallible belief that too many people have that because they are happy in their way of life then obviously anyone who doesn't live the same way as them simply cant be happy. That's kind of like me saying atheists simply cant be happy with their 'ridiculous ' set of beliefs (please note the Parenthesis I a m not saying that is my stand Im just trying to point out a similar kind of intolerance that people may more readily recognise for what it is ) . Its intolerant. And there lies the heart of the answer regarding banning of the burka in western countries.
I dont support or even pretend to say I would ever contemplate covering my face or wearing a burka on a regular basis, I have occasionally been in situations that called for it and not to wear it would be an insult to the culture I was surrounded by at the time. And thats fine.
Equally I acknowledge the fact that while not all branches of Islam believe the same thing from my religious view point wearing it is pointless and ridiculous and in western societies serves no purpose but to alienate and intimidate people, and that anyone who lives in a western society and chooses to wear one needs to seriously consider all implications before going down that road. And YES, I personally think you should be expected to be allowed to teach tiny kids who are not used to it if you cover your face. High Schoolers maybe, but primary and reception kids? No.

I do think however this is where the 'Great Western Democracy' comes unstuck. By Banning what people see as an act of faith you are effectively breaking your own laws and producing a climate of intolerance. Like I said earlier, the only effective way to ban it would be to ban all personal religious symbols from ALL religions, this would include the 'in god we trust' thing from American money and all other all state related symbols of faith, all Jewish symbols of faith, The christian women who cover their hair with blue scarves ( Are they the Latter day saints, The Mormons or the Jehovah's witnesses?- we have all three churches in town) crosses, pentagrams, crystals, prayer beads and worry beads.... you see where I am going with this. We would have to create a completely outwardly faith homogeneous society, and all faith and belief would have to be completely personal and private and confined to a person's home. Then again the other point I made earlier was that many women will only be separated from their hijabs and niqabs and such by Physical force, not the threat of it but by actual physical force. And who wants to live in that kind of society? The ultimate police-nanny state that decides it knows best and if you don't do as you are told we will just force you to do it anyway?

[billl]

I mean hello how is dressing like a page 3 model not demeening? but thats ok because its obvious that its her choice so why is a hijab or even a niquab any different.

This is an excellent point, bringing out what it really means for a woman to do what she wants, and begs the question of why it might be that she has come to want to do that...

I'm thinking that, just as women shouldn't wear bikinis in a bank, perhaps some Muslim societies (such as Saudi Arabia) might someday move toward relaxing burka requirements as certain activities acquire new levels of acceptability (such as driving a car, becoming a doctor, selling lingerie, whatever...).
It's not my place, but I can't help but wonder if women wearing burkas on the sidewalks might someday be able to reveal their faces in certain situations, and have fatwas to back them up, or whatever...

Anyhow, it's more the driving and working in certain professions that seems to be an issue, as far as I'm concerned. It is difficult for me to accept that women should be restricted so much, but I also see that some evolution in attitudes in certain areas might be healthier than an outright assault on tradition in general.

[Mr Endon]

Nightshade, thanks for taking time to answer my question. I now know that it's part of a rite of passage, and sure I already knew it's deeply imbedded in your culture.

However, just because it's a 'tradition' doesn't mean it's not founded on wrong ideals. Wait, let me retrace my steps. The thing is, I'm very keen on human rights. And that's why I now view traditions, all traditions, with suspicion. For instance, back when the Bible was written there was a mentality which is completely different from today's. Women had little or no rights. There were slaves. Etc, etc. So naturally I distrust whatever they propound. Just like the Greek democracy. They had slaves! I think we should bear the past in mind always, but mostly look forward, not backwards. Not follow the Bible, the Qu'ran, or whichever other millenar text, blindly, because the mindset was completely different and so its authority in morality and law-making evaporates like so much water in a frying pan.

Other than that,

'Global imperialism and the infallible belief that too many people have that because they are happy in their way of life then obviously anyone who doesn't live the same way as them simply cant be happy.'

I didn't say they are unhappy. I'm just saying that I have a problem when a culture is based on principles that were created when men were naturally considered better than women. And don't tell me I'm prejudiced against the Eastern culture. For example, in Western societies it's always been more acceptable for a man to have an affair than a woman. It has. Of course that now that's changing (see 'Sex and the City' phenomenon), but it's a remnant of a male-oriented culture which we are every day trying to disentangle ourselves from.

'the only effective way to ban it would be to ban all personal religious symbols from ALL religions'

There are two problems with this.

First, that's exactly what has been enforced in French schools. Not only Eastern symbols but cruxifixes, etc, have been banned.

Second, you said yourself that it's more a cultural than religious symbol. You should choose which it is for clarity's sake.

That being said, I agree that banning it is irresponsible and wrong. But I dislike the burqa as I dislike any cultural symbol, Western of Eastern, that has no place in current society, that is a remnant of a time when women were downtrodden. (of course we must perserve our cultures, that's very important indeed; but I'd prefer maintaining the elements of my culture that don't reinforce a notion of gender superiority. Like, say, the Christmas tree, that's pretty harmless.)

I'm sorry, I know you've written about how it's not a symbol of the subjugation of women, and I read it full of expectation and interest, but saying that it's a tradition that has good intentions is not enough to convince me of its harmlessness. There is a different treatment of women and men, that's unquestionable - women are encouraged to wear it, men are not. Now what we have to see is where does the difference lie, if in men's favour or in women's favour. And I think it's obvious.

[Nightshade]

Nightshade, thanks for taking time to answer my question. I now know that it's part of a rite of passage, and sure I already knew it's deeply imbedded in your culture.

However, just because it's a 'tradition' doesn't mean it's not founded on wrong ideals.
very much a true point here. Also if you were to get into an argument with a muslim one you could heavily back up with quranic quotes. :D


Wait, let me retrace my steps. The thing is, I'm very keen on human rights. And that's why I now view traditions with suspicion. For instance, back when the Bible was written there was a mentality which is completely different from today's. Women had little or no rights. There were slaves. Etc, etc. So naturally I distrust whatever they propound. Just like the Greek democracy. They had slaves! I think we should bear the past in mind always, but mostly look forward, not backwards. Not follow the Bible, the Qu'ran, or whichever other millenar text, blindly, because the Zeitgeist was completely different and so its authority in morality and law-making evaporates like so much water in a frying pan.

Again granted, people shouldn't follow anything blindly, if you do then you are stepping away from choice and into indoctrination.




'Global imperialism and the infallible belief that too many people have that because they are happy in their way of life then obviously anyone who doesn't live the same way as them simply cant be happy.'

I didn't say they are unhappy. I'm just saying that theirs is a culture that is based on principles that were created when men were naturally considered better than women. And don't tell me I'm prejudiced against the Eastern culture. For example, in Western societies it's somehow more acceptable for a man to have an affair than a woman. It is. Of course that now that's changing (see 'Sex and the City' phenomenon), but it's a remnant of a male-oriented culture which we are every day trying to unglue ourselves from.

Ok this is my problem I dont understand why people want to fix something that isnt broken, if people are happy with the way things are and they have the choice to change should they choose to, then why must we constantly choose to judge the way they live? If they are happy then live and let live, and if they arent happy then external pushing isnt going to do much to change it. What they need to do is to make up their own minds about what they want to do and try and do it themselves, if they then choose to accept external help then good and well, other wise telling people what they should or shouldnt do is patronising.
I need to add that it isnt aimed at you or anyone else I am just completing the train of thought.




'the only effective way to ban it would be to ban all personal religious symbols from ALL religions'

There are many problems with this.

First, that's exactly what has been enforced in French schools. Not only Eastern symbols but cruxifixes etc etc have been banned.
yes well then what is the issue? if everyone is treated equally no one has the right to complain yes of course if they ban the rest the hijab, burka and all should also be banned.


Second, you said yourself that it's more a cultural than religious symbol.
I did say that that is the stance of my own religious branch and that some branches of the religion see it as necessary, its like blocking all types of Christians together. We all believe different things , there isnt quaranic support of it but many branches of islam only have the quran as part of the core of beliefs ( all of them incorporate it to a degree or other but they're are differnt things that also factor in). I should have said that as well as being cultural also the belief in its religious importance is equally cultural. Some cultures belive it is a nesseary extetion of faith some people dont.



That being said, I agree that banning it is irresponsible and wrong. But I dislike the burqa as I dislike any cultural symbol, Western of Eastern, that has no place in current society, that is a remnant of a time when women were downtrodden. Of course we must perserve our cultures, that's very important indeed; but I'd prefer maintaining the elements of my culture that don't reinforce a notion of gender superiority. Like, say, the Christmas tree, that's pretty harmless.

Yes well thats the issue even should that occur if the gender superiority issues are present , I am not saying anything about that either way, then just removing one obvious image is not going to revolutionise things, what you are really after is a feminist movement of sorts, but it hasnt happened yet in many of those cultures, they will get their eventually that I do believe but trying to hurry them isnt helping matters, something as big and as dramatic and as fundamentally cultural altering as a full blown feminist movement is going to take a good long while to reach its peak. Lets not forget the routes of the western feminist movement were well and truly laid by 1792. At least I hope so else I am going to look a right idiot but that was the year the vindication of the rights of women was published. :D

Then again I would like to point out way back at the begining I said I couldnt defend the burka because I didnt understand it and I was just trying to put forth the other side the pro side that is of the argument.

[weltanschauung]

And you are precluding the fact that most hijab wearers LOVE wearing a hijab and that many niqab wearers feel the same.

And I am not going down the road of western perception of vs Eastern/ middle eastern perception, Global imperialism and the infallible belief that too many people have that because they are happy in their way of life then obviously anyone who doesn't live the same way as them simply cant be happy. That's kind of like me saying atheists simply cant be happy with their 'ridiculous ' set of beliefs (please note the Parenthesis I a m not saying that is my stand Im just trying to point out a similar kind of intolerance that people may more readily recognise for what it is ) . Its intolerant. And there lies the heart of the answer regarding banning of the burka in western countries.
I dont support or even pretend to say I would ever contemplate covering my face or wearing a burka on a regular basis, I have occasionally been in situations that called for it and not to wear it would be an insult to the culture I was surrounded by at the time. And thats fine.
Equally I acknowledge the fact that while not all branches of Islam believe the same thing from my religious view point wearing it is pointless and ridiculous and in western societies serves no purpose but to alienate and intimidate people, and that anyone who lives in a western society and chooses to wear one needs to seriously consider all implications before going down that road. And YES, I personally think you should be expected to be allowed to teach tiny kids who are not used to it if you cover your face. High Schoolers maybe, but primary and reception kids? No.

I do think however this is where the 'Great Western Democracy' comes unstuck. By Banning what people see as an act of faith you are effectively breaking your own laws and producing a climate of intolerance. Like I said earlier, the only effective way to ban it would be to ban all personal religious symbols from ALL religions, this would include the 'in god we trust' thing from American money and all other all state related symbols of faith, all Jewish symbols of faith, The christian women who cover their hair with blue scarves ( Are they the Latter day saints, The Mormons or the Jehovah's witnesses?- we have all three churches in town) crosses, pentagrams, crystals, prayer beads and worry beads.... you see where I am going with this. We would have to create a completely outwardly faith homogeneous society, and all faith and belief would have to be completely personal and private and confined to a person's home. Then again the other point I made earlier was that many women will only be separated from their hijabs and niqabs and such by Physical force, not the threat of it but by actual physical force. And who wants to live in that kind of society? The ultimate police-nanny state that decides it knows best and if you don't do as you are told we will just force you to do it anyway?

i see what youre saying, but that is absolutely not the point, come on!
pentagrams, crystals, prayer beads, worry beads and all these artifacts dont have the same connotation of a burka and youre absolutely stretching your argument. its fine you think like that and i dont care to change your mind, but i am really sorry that you dont realise what a burka stands for.
and i dont think they should ban this or that. i just hope all women at some point or another will refuse to let men run their lives.

what are men like in a place where women are only safe behind this!?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/23/article-0-0044C40100000258-304_468x473.jpg

women are not lepers!

[Scheherazade]

Ok this is my problem I dont understand why people want to fix something that isnt broken, if people are happy with the way things are and they have the choice to change should they choose to, then why must we constantly choose to judge the way they live? The thing is that it is broken, Nightshade.

Imagine a worldwide company which exploits their workers and the environment in some parts of the world and not so in some other parts. Would you feel at ease buying the products from this company and say, "Oh, well... The one I have bought comes from the factories where there is no exploitation of the workers or the environment."? In my opinion, such a purchase would be a plain endorsement of all the exploitations of the company.

Sometimes in life, we do need to make a choice and pick a side, I am afraid. In my opion, again, the burka is one of those matters. Because there are millions of women all around the world who are forced or tricked into wearing burkas and other religious tools and symbols of oppression, wearing one, even out of choice, is, in a way, disregarding the sufferings and troubles of those women who are not doing it out of choice. For most of these women, it is not only about burka, is it? It is the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. They are forced to wear burkas as well as being turned down from schools or workplaces; refused the right to vote or even the right to choose their own husbands.

It is easy to say that one is wearing burka or hijab out of choice while living in a democratic country, enjoying the equal opportunities that are available to all, but, Nightshade, would you still be willing if wearing burka meant you have lost your civil rights, locked in a house as the third wife of a "chosen-for-you-husband"?

I, personally, would not consider wearing or sanctioning items similar to burka until the day I know beyond any doubt that every single female who wears it does so purely out of their own personal choice and will, without losing their civil rights while doing so.

As for the Page 3 girls and their outfits... That is another extreme I do not, personally, approve of, which is why you cannot find me sporting similar outfits in the streets.

[Nightshade]

Imagine a worldwide company which exploits their workers and the environment in some parts of the world and not so in some other parts. Would you feel at ease buying the products from this company and say, "Oh, well... The one I have bought comes from the factories where there is no exploitation of the workers or the environment."? In my opinion, such a purchase would be a plain endorsement of all the exploitations of the company.

I, personally, would not consider wearing or sanctioning items similar to burka until the day I know beyond any doubt that every single female who wears it does so purely out of their own personal choice and will, without losing their civil rights while doing so.


Ok I think I get it, and since I wholeheartedly agree with the first point I can concede the second point. I still won't be taking off my hijab any time soon but I seen the rightness in your argument. But to play devil's advocate , wouldnt that be conceding defeat in a way? By giving up something that in its original conception was an honor because because misogynistic bigoted high handed idiots, aren't they winning? Aren't we sending the message that we can't be who we are what we are and be free so we have to abandon a part of ourselves and change becuase you won't so that we can have some measure of freedom.

I think the main thing that gets me, is that even if they banned all the burkas in the world you still wouldnt free women from oppression in these kinds of communities, its a lot more insidious than that, And so when we ban the burka just because they look less oppressed are we all going to turn away rub our hands and say thats done now who else can we fix?

By all means if we ant to fix these womens problems lets try but lets get to the root of it and not just a symptom of it.

[weltanschauung]

well, to cure a disease you have to treat the symptoms, do you not?


wouldnt that be conceding defeat in a way? By giving up something that in its original conception was an honor because because misogynistic bigoted high handed idiots, aren't they winning? Aren't we sending the message that we can't be who we are what we are and be free so we have to abandon a part of ourselves and change becuase you won't so that we can have some measure of freedom.


oxymoron.
by rejecting a degrating condition you embrace the opressors?
that makes no sense AT ALL.

[Nightshade]

well, to cure a disease you have to treat the symptoms, do you not?

Actually no. You need to attack the cause of the symptoms rather than the side affects which are the symptoms. Else you can end up masking a very dangerous disease. Eliminating the symptoms should be a side affect of curing the disease rather than the way to curing it.

[Saladin]

very much a true point here. Also if you were to get into an argument with a muslim one you could heavily back up with quranic quotes. :D


Well that depends on which madhab and fiqh that muslim follows. The reality is as i wrote earlier there is nothing in islamic scriptures which says that muslim womens should wear burqa or niqaab for that sake. There is some madhabs as you probably know which says its "wajib" (recommended), but that thats not the same as something being fard (mandatory) as you know.

Its not either favourable to wear it in the West according some muslim clerics/ulema. So this discussion is merely based on what goes on in some muslim-dominated societies.


This is meant to everyone else which have been active in this thread:

From a fiqh-perspective this discussion is not that important.

The saddest part with this discussion is that non-muslim Westerners (not all of them) are always debating out from a premise that are based on their cultural background. I doubt that there is some of us muslims that are debating in this thread which are clearly denying that there is some womens that are forced to wear those garments (its irrelevant if its hijab or burqa or jalabib for that sake). I am first of all speaking for myself, but if i did deny it it would not only be ridiculous but also very naive of me.

To use force in religion is something which is clearly prohibted in islam. Both in religious upbringing and in religious practice. There is something called niyyah (intentions) in islam. To force a person to for instance to pray the five daily obligatory prayers or wear hijab or fast during Ramadan is stupidity.

The muslim theolog and polymath Al-Ghazali said In order to know yourself, you have to know God. If you dont know yourself you clearly dont know God. If there is no intentions in your rites or prayer or religious practice as whole, there is no use to do what you do. This argument is against those fundamentalistic muslim groups like Taliban or the regime in KSA or the regime in Iran which force people to act according islamic rules. Most of their understanding of islam is based on subjective intrepretations, ergo it doesnt necessarily mean its correct.




That being said, I agree that banning it is irresponsible and wrong. But I dislike the burqa as I dislike any cultural symbol, Western of Eastern, that has no place in current society, that is a remnant of a time when women were downtrodden. (of course we must perserve our cultures, that's very important indeed; but I'd prefer maintaining the elements of my culture that don't reinforce a notion of gender superiority. Like, say, the Christmas tree, that's pretty harmless.)



I totally agree with you on this. I myself dislike the burqa also.

[Nightshade]

Well that depends on which madhab and fiqh that muslim follows. The reality is as i wrote earlier there is nothing in islamic scriptures which says that muslim womens should wear burqa or niqaab for that sake. There is some madhabs as you probably know which says its "wajib" (recommended), but that thats not the same as something being fard (mandatory) as you know.

Its not either favourable to wear it in the West according some muslim clerics/ulema. So this discussion is merely based on what goes on in some muslim-dominated societies.


I wasnt referring to hijabs etc, I was referring to the blindly following traditions. and the ayahs about we found our fathers and fore fathers doing this so we do it, without thinking as it is obviously right. I think most of them are found in conjunction with Stories of Abraham but I think there might be a reference in relation to Noah and at least one in relation to Quraysh.

[Saladin]

I wasnt referring to hijabs etc, I was referring to the blindly following traditions. and the ayahs about we found our fathers and fore fathers doing this so we do it, without thinking as it is obviously right. I think most of them are found in conjunction with Stories of Abraham but I think there might be a reference in relation to Noah and at least one in relation to Quraysh.

Shukran for the clarification. It seems like i misunderstood.

[weltanschauung]

Actually no. You need to attack the cause of the symptoms rather than the side affects which are the symptoms. Else you can end up masking a very dangerous disease. Eliminating the symptoms should be a side affect of curing the disease rather than the way to curing it.

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

thats exactly what ive been saying all this time, but youre kind of not getting it.

so lets not do anything about the burkas, and the maiming of african girls' genitals, and all these "symptoms" that are not a problem at all. if you get a fever from a flu, you can die if you get too hot. but not lets not do anything about the fever, because that is not the disease. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif

you dont even realise the contradiction in your argument, because youre trying to defend a prejucide that is part of your routine since letting it go would be losing a part of yourself. and youre accustomed to it because it makes you who you are, so obviously you need to defend this part of yourself.

i also dont think a man can look at this from the same point of view, specially a muslim man, because they live in a comfortable situation, and they always have. men in general do.
giving back up text from whatever source is not proving anything, what happens in theory is VERY different from what we see in practice.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l W a r n i n g

Posts that do not directly deal with the issue at hand

or

show intolerance/disrespect towards others' beliefs will be deleted without further notice.

Please discuss the topic, not each other.

[kilted exile]

firstly quoting myself from a long gone & locked thread cos I cant be bothered re-typing it:


I have no issue with people personally choosing what they want to wear, some women may feel liberated wearing a hijab, some may feel liberated wearing a halter top, 6" skirt & high heels, others may feel liberated plastering their exposed breasts all over page 3. So long as it is an issue of personal choice, I cant see why anyone should have a problem with what a person decides to wear.

Next on to more specific points relating to this area of discussion - too many people are looking at this as a black and white issue. Like everything else it is not. Sure there are some women who may be forced to wear the hijab, burka, or niqab. There are however also a large number (I would hazard to guess the majority in "non-islamic" countries) who freely choose to do so. To remove their right to wear a symbol of their culture (or religion depending on the individual belief of the wearer) is frankly stupid.

[The Atheist]

I, personally, would not consider wearing or sanctioning items similar to burka until the day I know, beyond any doubt, that every single female who wears it does so purely out of their own personal choice and will, without losing their civil rights while doing so.

One of the best posts it's ever been my privilege to read.


As for the Page 3 girls and their outfits... That is another extreme I do not, personally, approve of, which is why you cannot find me sporting similar outfits in the streets.

What??/

Play fair! Get down to those undies!

[qimissung]

My regards to Nightshade, Saladin and Scher who stated their positions with such clarity; and to Welt, for his passion that all people be treated equally.

It seems to me that nowadays the burqa has become a symbol for subjugation. I still think that if it is clearly the woman's choice, then she should be allowed to wear it. I'm thinking at this point of France, where this issue has come up. Religious symbols should not be outlawed; it is one thing to outlaw something that is overt in it's denial of someone's "rights", but quite another to outlaw something that in another country is a subjugation of rights.

[blazeofglory]

Is it demeaning towards women?
Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
Should it be the woman's prerogative?
If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?

This has been motivated by recent political developments, but I'm sure we can keep politics out of this discussion?

In fact I hate masks even to the extent that clothed should be used to cover us against cold.

[mazHur]

My regards to Nightshade, Saladin and Scher who stated their positions with such clarity; and to Welt, for his passion that all people be treated equally.

It seems to me that nowadays the burqa has become a symbol for subjugation. I still think that if it is clearly the woman's choice, then she should be allowed to wear it. I'm thinking at this point of France, where this issue has come up. Religious symbols should not be outlawed; it is one thing to outlaw something that is overt in it's denial of someone's "rights", but quite another to outlaw something that in another country is a subjugation of rights.

Hello Qim

Nice to see you here on the Burqa thread and read your views. Those are quite reasonable which I appreciate. In order to avoid repetition, I am pleased to post here a link to another ongoing discussion at an other forum where I have also posted some comments previously. I hope the posters here will find them useful.

http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/burqa-principle-prejudice-and-preference/

[Themis]

Is it demeaning towards women?
Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
Should it be the woman's prerogative?
If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?

This has been motivated by recent political developments, but I'm sure we can keep politics out of this discussion?

I think the burka should be banned. I don't think religious symbols should generally be banned. I'm all for equalty and playing nice but I do think that we should be able to be proud of our culture. The same does go for the muslims but to me there is a difference between wearing a cross and mummery.
I wouldn't wear a cross if I happened to live in an Eastern country. I would keep it, I dare say, but I wouldn't flaunt it. I would try to fit in and also try to understand the people, learn the language and such.
I think, wearing a burqua and such is just the opposite of trying to fit in. To me it's foreign and a bit frightening; and I'm afraid I could not trust a woman wearing a burqua in court, a hospital or a school to be able to understand western culture and do our law justice.

[mazHur]

are you trying to stress the old saying, When in Rome do as the Romans do?

Well, unless you happen to live in an eastern country you won't realize the difference.

Entering a nudist colony all dressed up would certainly astound all bare around there, won't it?

Burqa or even a small piece of hanky which is called a scarf seems to astound the West!! Not amazing!

[Steven Hunley]

You all know as well as I do that covering up your women in public settings in any form is just a way of keeping other men from hitting on them, and as such is a expession of Machissmo, which is itself a manifestation of insecurity. It robs women of one their pleasures in life which is comparing theirselves in fashion, taste, and beauty to other women.
Men of this sort feel they must rule women, 'cause they can't trust them, (they're just so inferior you know)

[Scheherazade]

It robs women of one their pleasures in life which is comparing theirselves in fashion, taste, and beauty to other women.Really wish you hadn't said that...

Mazhur> The non-Muslim women who go to Muslim countries are expected to cover their heads even if just for the sake of appearance. Why cannot non-muslim countries ask Muslim women not to cover their heads when they are in the West?

[NickAdams]

It robs women of one their pleasures in life which is comparing theirselves in fashion, taste, and beauty to other women.

I was under the similar assumption that men like to compare their members. O, why must society burden me with these fabrics!

[mazHur]

Really wish you hadn't said that...

Mazhur> The non-Muslim women who go to Muslim countries are expected to cover their heads even if just for the sake of appearance. Why cannot non-muslim countries ask Muslim women not to cover their heads when they are in the West?

A very intelligent question put by Scheherzade which I sincerely appreciate.

In most of the Muslim countries including Pakistan ( excluding monarchies which have their own rules) I never saw a foreign woman clad in a burqa or anything of that sort. I also remember Western women moving around the city and busy market places in their usual western dresses. I also remember my fellow Muslim and western female classmates attending school in school uniform which consisted of shirt and skirt. But this was until mid 80's only . thereafter the situation changed critically so much so that now no Western woman , even if she is a Muslim, can expect to roam about the city without hiding behind a veil or a burqa. This does not seem to have a purely cultural or religious reason; infact this change has much to do with international politics and mainly due to unpopular foreign policies of the West, especially the Americans, towards the Muslim countries. People ask where are the WMD's?? Where is Osama, the terrorist? Why is US bent on invading other Muslim countries? What is war on terror? The US is waging war against an abstract enemy on the pretext of 'war on terror'! Given all this the Muslim world is wary of the West and it thinks the West, including America, is trying to exploit, bully and harm them. This sentiment has been embedded so strongly in the hearts of Muslims in Muslim countries such as Pakistan that a Western/ American woman (and even a man) would be playing with death going out in the city without some sort of security or 'disguise' . So, you can see how a change in minds of the Muslims as well as the West has provided reason for all this chaos and turmoil.

As regards remarks by Hunley I may say that even a woman clad in a burqa is a woman and she enjoys the pleasures of life like all other women. It's only bad when a woman is forced to wear it.

[Scheherazade]

Thank you for your detailed reply (let's not get into current politics, though :)).

What you are suggesting is that because of the recent American/Western policies there is an anti-Western sentiment which results in the intolerance/resentment towards anyone who does not wear Islamic clothings or follow an Islamic way of life. Is that?

What if we turn the coin, then? Can we not say that because of this intolerant (and very aggressive) attitude (in the East) towards the West and anything non-Muslim that the West is is wary of the Islam and does not want the consistent reminder of their fundementalist attitudes towards themselves in the form of burkas and other religious displays?

I think Islam has enjoyed an everlasting freedom in the West. I cannot imagine any chruches or synanogues in Muslim countries having anti-Islamic meetings and broadcasting anti-Islamic propaganda only to get away with it on the grounds of equality or human rights. However, these things happen here in the UK almost daily.

I am not suggesting that Muslims who live in the West should not practise their religion but when they demand these freedoms, they should also do a little soul searching to see whether they actually offer the same kind of understanding towards others who do not share their own point of views.

[JBI]

In truth, Franz Fannon wrote a famous essay on the subject, in which he equates the veil as a) an act of shame from a colonial perspective, and b) an act of pride in order to hinder the colonial perspective (this is in talking about Algeria).

The irony, I would argue, is that the dialectic is all off - yes, it is a counter to a colonial perspective, but merely enforces other binaries that are perhaps more important - I'm not wanting to get banned here, but keep in mind, women with big feet in China for a while were considered undesirable - it was said that once someone saw an unbound foot their appreciation for a foot's beauty would be lost forever - on what grounds then, can we justify a burka as anything other than a bound foot? We think of it somehow better because of political correctness, but I'm of the mind that if women still bound their feet, we would still have the need to criticize such an act - so where do we draw the line?

OK, I can't think of anyone defending female genital cutting - that would probably be the most deplorable cultural act that is still prevelent in this world (it is estimated that the % of women in Egypt for the women, who have undergone a clitoridechtomy is in the 90%s, with high figures throughout the region, and more serious cutting in certain areas) but that is a traditional practice, is it politically correct to say that it is acceptable? On moral grounds these days, I think we can safely say it is.

By extension, I don't think anybody today would make any case for a barbaric practice like foot binding - we all know that that clearly was a barbaric cultural practice that was allowed to flourish.

But somehow, when it comes to iconography, rather than physical body motification, we cannot say anything - what then is acceptable and what is not? We already have proof that some cultural practices are, by our standards, inhumane. When does it become islamophobic, or in general, bigoted to comment, and when is it justified? Would someone, for instance, like me, commenting on female genital cutting be labeled culturally bigoted? Am I to be taken for a racist, for denouncing the practice, or for a rational person?

By that token, we now have a problem - what is the line between morality and cultural sensitivity? We must also keep in mind, that some of the greatest protesters to the unbinding of women's feet were women - how does that factor into the equation? Can we take them as rational? Are we supposed, on a major scale, to accept that, and let it continue? What is the line between justified to comment, important to take a stand, and bigotry?

For instance, in certain world conflicts people like to take stands (I am deliberately being vague as to avoid current politics in keeping with the site's rules). I for instance, could go to such and such rally, could sign such and such petition, and wouldn't be considered adequately informed or a functional part of society if I did not take stands on issues - but how can someone from Canada make a comment on another country's foreign policy? Is that right, or is that merely failing to understand the cultural differences?

What is the line between criticism and bigotry? Is criticism now only reserved for people within the system? Can I not say that the indoctrination into a set of values is immoral if I think it is, or does that just make me a bigot? But who knows - I'm sure if I was to try and remove a veil, the woman wearing it would scream the loudest.

As far as I am concerned, the only way to defeat such a system - the same way footbinding was defeated - is to implement a law, forbidding it - there will always be countries complaining, but, as far as I am concerned, if they do not wish to play by the rules, they might as well not come to a new country - everyone is entitled, in my eyes to a chance at a new life and a successful future, but that does not come without some sort of cultural responsibility to the host country.


Take the issue of, for instance, women wearing headscarves not being allowed to play soccer in certain leagues in Canada. It was deemed that, in terms of safety, wearing them would prove too much of a liability. Despite the protests, and the fighting, the ruling was upheld - if you can't play by the rules, don't play. That's how I see the whole issue - if you can't accept your new home as your home, than don't bother coming - multiculturalism is one thing, directly allowing things deemed immoral to continue because someone happens to hold them in high regard is another. It's not the west's responsibility to cater to the demands of people wishing to be accepted by it - it is the job of the society to ensure equality between all citizens - likewise, equality comes with the responsibility of respecting, and sacrificing for the sake of others - the Burka does not, and cannot function compatibly with the values of the host society, and, if it is too big a sacrifice to not wear it, people need not come as far as I am concerned.


I'd note - I am equally as critical of similar "modesty" practices amongst other communities, such as Orthodox Judaism - this isn't a nitpick of mine.

[mazHur]

Thank you for your detailed reply (let's not get into current politics, though :)).

What you are suggesting is that because of the recent American/Western policies there is an anti-Western sentiment which results in the intolerance/resentment towards anyone who does not wear Islamic clothings or follow an Islamic way of life. Is that?

What if we turn the coin, then? Can we not say that because of this intolerant (and very aggressive) attitude (in the East) towards the West and anything non-Muslim that the West is is wary of the Islam and does not want the consistent reminder of their fundementalist attitudes towards themselves in the form of burkas and other religious displays?

I think Islam has enjoyed an everlasting freedom in the West. I cannot imagine any chruches or synanogues in Muslim countries having anti-Islamic meetings and broadcasting anti-Islamic propaganda only to get away with it on the grounds of equality or human rights.

I am not suggesting that Muslims who happen to live in the West should not practise their religion but when they demand these freedoms, they should also do a little soul searching to see whether they actually offer the same kind of understanding towards others who do not share their own point of views.



No, it's not like that. The anti-Western sentiment has nothing to do with dress. Most of the people here prefer to wear Western dress, in fact even I rarely wear local costume. This attitude is obvious in many other spheres of life. People here like many aspects of Western/American culture and are not prejudiced against the Western/American people. It's the policies of their leaders they hate.

If an American woman moves around the city here in her usual dress she would at once be noticed as a foreigner notwithstanding whether she is a Muslim or Non-Muslim. It would be the same with an American man due to his features and color. Therefore to escape from the 'wrath' of a 'dissident' who may try to harm her/him, it would be advisable for them not to go about in public, not even under a different garb as he may be found out from language etc. When the general trend is against something it's better not to display it. You will recall one burqa-clad woman been killed by a fanatic in France recently? There are fanatics everywhere....Pakistan not being an exception.


Non-Muslims enjoy full liberty and infact some privileges over resident Muslims in some matters. For example, in government services they enjoy an age relaxation of 3 years! Every Non-Muslim is as free as a Muslim here and enjoys the same benefits as us. However, the problem arises when some non_muslim mischievous elements try to incite anger among the Muslims by publicly mocking, abusing and disparaging their elders and peers or committing hateful atrocities against their prophet or the Hoy Quran through instigational means and measures. however, such incidences are occasional and obviously incite anger among Muslims. Other wise we, Muslims eat and drink in the same bowl as the non Muslims. No differentiation at socio-economic level except some restrictions imposed by the Constitution on their election to the premier post.

Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality


Naomi Wolfe
August 30, 2008
Advertisement

A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?

keep on reading....


http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[JBI]

Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality


Naomi Wolfe
August 30, 2008
Advertisement

A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?

keep on reading....


http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

As far as I know, Naomi Wolf isn't without intense criticism - even from within the Muslim community. You would note, that the loudest voices coming against the Burka tend to come from Muslim Women - Ms. Wolf's opinions are hardly a general consensus - in truth, academic feminists, from my understanding, absolutely loathe her and don't take her seriously.

[mazHur]

'foot binding' is mainly restricted to China where it is a customary adoption.
'Circumcision of women' is restricted to some parts of the world-again this is customary.
'Veiling' is NOT restricted to any particular region-it is a universal 'phenomena' with those women opting to wear it. 'Veiling' is not a custom or part of any culture, it is also has socio-religious implications. Muslim women are commanded by their faith to 'cover up their bosoms' and to 'avoid showing their meat' and displaying their 'feminine ornamentation' to public. To do this any type of garb is okay, not necessarily the burqa.
Why should one have objection to it when Sikh men are allowed to wear turbans in the West? That would be sheer discrimination against women.

you loathe her because she doesn't suit your 'taste', ha!
Let's set aside our prejudices and let no one 'loathe' anyone for his/her point of view!

[optimisticnad]

I'm against it - if someone, in my view, is under the belief that they are somehow disgusting, or shouldn't be looked at for whatever reason, then, quite frankly, somewhere along the lines there was some conditioning that I can't agree with.

Urm...I don't think anyone is covering up because they think they are 'disgusting'!

I remember once at school my Religious Studies teacher remarked then men aren't going to go wild if they a strip of a women's hair.

But she missed the point.

More than anything it is a sign of obedience/submission to God, a willingness to listen to him. It is no different in concept to what nun's wear as a sign of - not just modesty, but piety.

There is the concern that criminals may abuse it but I find this concept far-stretched - that a bank robber, a rapist, is going to go to all the trouble of wearing one to carry out his crime, if anything it will hinder his performance! :)

There is of course the opposite angle no? That many women are saved from e.g sexual harassment. I had a self-defence class for women and the policewomen who presented it wasn't a Muslim but she picked out a Muslim women dressed in full burka/hijab and said if you're going out late night this is the way to go. There is nothing least tempting about you, in fact apparently stalkers/rapists will be put off because they want someone 'easy' and you're not worth the hassle and the final thing she mentioned was that underneath this burka this women has lovely jewelery on - but no one else would know or be any wiser, its a complete protection from the perverts in our society.

Every society/culture has some form of cultural pressure - take for example the pressure to lose your virginity at a young age. This is no different

edit: I've just remember Yvonne Ridley. Countless western women, the epitome of the free no? have embraced Islam and wear the Burka - what pressure did they have? I'm not ruling it out but you can't generalise either that women wear this out of cultural pressure.

Bottom line: we tolerate pink hair and tattoo, piercings left right and centre which I personally find distasteful, youth gang in hoodies, practically nude twelve year olds....and we're up in arms about the burka? Where is tolerance here? Young girls parading half naked, no one bats an eye, two women walking down the road in a burka - oh no! panic button.

If we sacrifice one religion's idiosyncrasies than prepare to sacrifice yours too. That's fairness and equality and democracy which so so many people have died for. Don't let it be in vain.

[JBI]

'foot binding' is mainly restricted to China where it is a customary adoption.
'Circumcision of women' is restricted to some parts of the world-again this is customary.
'Veiling' is NOT restricted to any particular region-it is a universal 'phenomena' with those women opting to wear it. 'Veiling' is not a custom or part of any culture, it is also has socio-religious implications. Muslim women are commanded by their faith to 'cover up their bosoms' and to 'avoid showing their meat' and displaying their 'feminine ornamentation' to public. To do this any type of garb is okay, not necessarily the burqa.
Why should one have objection to it when Sikh men are allowed to wear turbans in the West? That would be sheer discrimination against women.

you loathe her because she doesn't suit your 'taste', ha!
Let's set aside our prejudices and let no one 'loathe' anyone for his/her point of view!

You can't justify a practice just because it is widely practiced - that is a false argument - abuse against women, for instance, is a universal issue, ingrained in many cultures; are we to say that it is alright now, because it is culturally significant, or widespread? I think the fact that it is so widespread is cause enough to comment more, don't you think?


A seak man bundling his hair into a turban is one thing; someone being denied the freedom, through either coercion, or indoctrination from a young age, to be essentially seen in public is a completely other thing. The Burka has only one effect - it denies a woman an identity outside of the realm of daughter, wife, and mother.

Naomi Wolf cannot justify it, nor was she trying to - she was talking, as you would note, about headscarves and Hijab, a completely different issue. Covering one's hair to show modesty is another - denying any part of the body exposure to the outside world, and then telling one's daughter that if she is seen by a man, she will be impure, and be a sinner in the face of God (a double, for causing, gasp, a man to think her beautiful that isn't her husband) is a completely different issue. Justify it however you want, like I said before, you cannot justify a practice because it is widespread, and you cannot justify it anymore because of its cultural relevence, the same you cannot justify female genital cutting, which, by extension, has seen world wide distribution as well, by immigrants foregoing shunning their cultural identities, and taking the liberty of brutally sexually assaulting their daughters, and either preforming the procedure themselves, or shipping their daughters back to the mother country for a quicky, before marital age.


All these arguments for simply are arguments that consider the subversion of identity to be somehow beneficial for society - if a girl is in a burka, she can't be any less desirable, or whatever, so it is a good thing, because it is reducing their chance of being raped. That isn't an argument for a Burka, it is an argument for increasing in awareness and prevention of sexual assault. You said it yourself - the Burka specifically makes her less desirable - it denies her that right, by reducing the sexuality of the woman to something reserved for, and only for, a husband - but of course, you guys argue that is a good thing - of course, if we look in retrospect, we can see counter examples.

For instance, if I was to tie a giant ball and chain to a girl's ankle, I hypothetically could do the same thing, by denying mobility - hell, I could do better - within a few weeks, the girl wouldn't even want to leave, and I could remove the ball and chain, such is the way the human mind adapts to survive - the caged animal after some time, will be more reluctant to leave its cage, especially if its "benefactor" keeps hammering in how they will be a sinner in the eyes of god if they do.

Quite frankly, if denying a woman an identity is an obedience to god, than perhaps the practices as a foundation need to be rethought. There is no shame in modesty, but as you put it, the Burka is taking things passed the level a nun (I assume you meant Catholic nun) would go, and even now, the bulk of Catholic nuns seem to have modernized their garb to a partial head covering, and do not wear something that denies even the right to have one's eyes looked into.



As I have stated before, the biggest protests against the stopping of a) female genital cutting, b) footbinding were generally coming from the practitioners themselves - it took a widespread law, making it drastically illegal to bind one's feet to stop the procedure - likewise, the Burka gathers tons of support from the women who wear them - but, to what extent is someone caught up in the issue conscious of anything but what they are brought up with? For instance, a woman brought up to believe that something is right, and that God will punish her for doing otherwise, is likely not going to break the habit - there are other factors too - for instance, some women are told people who don't practice certain things are disgusting - the very act of the Burka speaks about this.


Take for instance, the religious rational behind it. By basic extension, the teaching is also addressing not wearing the Burka - if anything, it is conditioning a sort of self-superiority, and a disdain for the non-practitioner, as they are reduced to a somehow impure, somehow dirty, unfilial state, by the exact rational that causes the wearing of the Burka - if someone who is not wearing it is looked at by a man, they, according to the logic, must be taken as being a sinner (a double, since they may have been thought of as beautiful). Does that condition women to view other women differently? Isn't that a disrespect of my cultural beliefs, to have a system which decrees that my sister is somehow impure, because she isn't "modest". It equates, does it not, the Unveiled woman as essentially whore.

Thereby, in order for that justification to work, you must admit, that the rational for it, can also, by extension, be used to reduce those who don't practice it - someone brought up with that notion from a young age, for instance, isn't easily going to be able to give up the practice, and assume the role as whore - others relish the experience, it gives a sort of "cultural superiority" through Burka identity by equating oneself with the "clean" side.

[mazHur]

@ Optimisticnad

you seem to have forget about the liberties granted to gays!! Are gays better than women, burqa-clad or other wise?? No.


@ JBI

<<<<<The Burka has only one effect - it denies a woman an identity outside of the realm of daughter, wife, and mother.>>>>>

Obviously you do not seem to have any idea about the status of women, on particular the one held by Islam.

Woman is a mother....she is superior to her son.(man)
Woman is sister.....may or may not be superior to her brother depending on her age and qualifications.
Father(man) is superior to his son (man) or daughter (woman)
Wife Woman) is equal to her husband (man) depending on character.
Husabnd (man) is superior to his wife (woman) depending on his character.

Islam grants the greatest respect and dignity to women so much so that she is not made a 'public commodity' to be seen and enjoyed by all!

<<<<<<<<<<<,,
You can't justify a practice just because it is widely practiced >>>>>>>>>>>..

If this is false, as you surmise, then your democracy is also a sham for being wide spread, all great religions of the world are sham because they are 'wide spread'; all doctrines, all schools of thought, beliefs, attitudes are fake because they are 'wide spread; all stars and galaxies and the cosmos are false because they are 'wide spread.

Conversely, all is sham that is not wide spread, eh?
You do not have a case!

I told you circumcision of women may be a custom in some African countries but it is not what Islam tells them to do. I never heard of it in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
I think it is also not practiced in the Far East or South East India.

You aspersions as to <<<<immigrants foregoing shunning their cultural identities, and taking the liberty of brutally sexually assaulting their daughters, and either preforming the procedure themselves, or shipping their daughters back to the mother country for a quicky, before marital age. >>>>>>is totally false, frivolous nonsense, skuttlebutting!

[JBI]

I told you circumcision of women may be a custom in some African countries but it is not what Islam tells them to do. I never heard of it in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
I think it is also not practiced in the Far East or South East India.



When did I say it was a Muslim custom? I said it was a traditional cultural practice, which it is in many parts of the world. It just so happens, for the most part, those countries, such as Egypt, which has a rate in the 90%s, happen to be predominantly Muslim.

As for your refuting of my notion about wide-spread practices and criticism, your argument lacks the logical coherency necessary for me to make a response, given that it is completely irrelevant, and uses a rhetoric gimmick of making the argument seem absurd as a purposeful way of sideswiping the major question.





Woman is a mother....she is superior to her son.(man)
Woman is sister.....may or may not be superior to her brother depending on her age and qualifications.
Father(man) is superior to his son (man) or daughter (woman)
Wife Woman) is equal to her husband (man) depending on character.
Husabnd (man) is superior to his wife (woman) depending on his character.


Good, thank you for clearing it up - woman is mother, sister, wife, but where is woman as woman? Where is woman as individual? Where is woman as something outside of these spheres? Who cares if scripture calls her equal, clearly the Burka is denying any sort of equality outside of these perimeters - she can be equal as wife, she can be equal as sister, and as mother, but what about as person? Or is she too impure to be anything but these things? Where is the personal identity? You deny the self, and then praise the decision.


Your post is quite absurd - you seem to be trying to contradict my arguments by offering me proofs as to how they are right - I know perfectly well about the position of women in Islam, and, as you quite simply put it, Mother, Sister, Daughter, Wife - the Burka protects all these things, perhaps, but what about something else? Could you go up to a human being, and reduce them to such fixes? Is that normal?

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l___W a r n i n g

Please do not discuss each other.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be deleted without any further notice.

[mazHur]

@ Optimisticnad

you seem to have forget about the liberties granted to gays!! Are gays better than women, burqa-clad or other wise?? No.


@ JBI

<<<<<The Burka has only one effect - it denies a woman an identity outside of the realm of daughter, wife, and mother.>>>>>

Obviously you do not seem to have any idea about the status of women, on particular the one held by Islam.

Woman is a mother....she is superior to her son.(man)
Woman is sister.....may or may not be superior to her brother depending on her age and qualifications.
Father(man) is superior to his son (man) or daughter (woman)
Wife Woman) is equal to her husband (man) depending on character.
Husabnd (man) is superior to his wife (woman) depending on his character.

Islam grants the greatest respect and dignity to women so much so that she is not made a 'public commodity' to be seen and enjoyed by all!

<<<<<<<<<<<,,
You can't justify a practice just because it is widely practiced >>>>>>>>>>>..

If this is false, as you surmise, then your democracy is also a sham for being wide spread, all great religions of the world are sham because they are 'wide spread'; all doctrines, all schools of thought, beliefs, attitudes are fake because they are 'wide spread; all stars and galaxies and the cosmos are false because they are 'wide spread.

Conversely, all is sham that is not wide spread, eh?
You do not have a case!

I told you circumcision of women may be a custom in some African countries but it is not what Islam tells them to do. I never heard of it in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
I think it is also not practiced in the Far East or South East India.

You aspersions as to <<<<immigrants foregoing shunning their cultural identities, and taking the liberty of brutally sexually assaulting their daughters, and either preforming the procedure themselves, or shipping their daughters back to the mother country for a quicky, before marital age. >>>>>>is totally false, frivolous nonsense, skuttlebutting!


PS: sorry I have to clarify that all human beings are equal, including women.:angel:

[Gladys]

So this discussion is merely based on what goes on in some Muslim-dominated societies. ... The saddest part with this discussion is that non-Muslim Westerners (not all of them) are always debating out from a premise that are based on their cultural background.

Of course, we all accept that coercion to wear the burka is abhorent, but even as a Westerner, the anti-Muslim bias - a cultural blindness - in many of the posts is blatant. We should see that the West's perspective is just one among many.

From thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/burqa-principle-prejudice-and-preference/:



...Bertrand Russell’s observations on the tyranny of the majority (from Political Ideals, 1917) where he discusses “matters of passionate interest to certain sections of the community, but of very little interest to the great majority. If they are decided according to the wishes of the numerical majority, the intense desires of a minority will be overborne by the very slight and uninformed whims of the indifferent remainder…. The tyranny of the majority is a very real danger.



Good, thank you for clearing it up - woman is mother, sister, wife, but where is woman as woman? Where is woman as individual? Where is woman as something outside of these spheres?

While I understand your 21st century Western perspective, JBI, I know that other perspectives, perhaps more valid, are also held. And worldwide, this Western perspective is probably in the minority.


Bottom line: we tolerate pink hair and tattoo, piercings left right and centre which I personally find distasteful, youth gang in hoodies, practically nude twelve year olds....and we're up in arms about the burka? Where is tolerance here? Young girls parading half naked, no one bats an eye, two women walking down the road in a burka - oh no! panic button..

As you suggest, Optimisticnad, a subtle double-standard is evident in those that would ban the burka outright. Nevertheless, I would argue that in selected situations, of employment and otherwise, the wearing of a burka may well be prohibited.

[JBI]

While I understand your 21st century Western perspective, JBI, I know that other perspectives, perhaps more valid, are also held. And worldwide, this Western perspective is probably in the minority.


That doesn't justify it, and, quite simply, if a family is wanting to become part of the West, as immigrants are want (just take a look at Europe in general as an example), then why should the West put up with something that goes against it? Who is fighting for the rights of the home team here? If they don't want to remove it, what business does someone have going into a country where it is deemed abhorrent?


But I have said it before, the most vocal criticism against the Burka comes not from Western countries, but from Muslims themselves - the bulk of the public planning to have it stopped as a cultural practice is not restricted to just a Western perspective - Turkey is a good example, of a country in transition in that regard - but even from within the most traditional areas, one constantly hears a voice going against such practices - to what extent then can we accept this as only a Western bigoted downplay on Muslims? Is nit now Muslims selling themselves out to the West to? Fannon would argued it could at times be seen that way, but what if it is something else that is the cause, perhaps a general want of progress, of better life.

[Scheherazade]

JBI> What is your definition of a country? And nation?

All people living in the same country need to share same religious beliefs to be part of that nation?

[mazHur]

In 1969 I visted Kabul and found all Afghan women, muslims or non-muslims, there clad in shirt/blouse and skirt in compliance to an Imperial edict by the then King of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah. As soon as the King was overthrown the same women switched over to their national dress of shalwar-qameez and burqa! This shows that any attempt to bring a 'forced cultural change' is not effective at all!

Burqa faded out in urban Pakistan some 20 years ago but the trend for it has mysteriously picked up again! I recall people deeming a burqa clad women as whores or women of dubious character...rightfully or wrongfully. But nowadays the burqa is regarded as a symbol of chastity by the same people who shunned it! What brought this change has yet to be studied. Educated women are opting for it in greater numbers voluntarily as compared to women in rural or backward areas where women is bound to cover herself from the imperatives of prevailing environment there. Since men are responsible for the safety and security of women in Islam (there is no 'genuine Islamic state' in the world to take up this responsibility....and even if it there like Saudi Arabia it stands second) their women have to take 'precautionary' measures to conceal their charm lest trouble starts. Feuds over women inherently extend to generations in a feudal society and there is hardly any end to blood shed.thus in a weak state women feel secure by wearing burqa or anything of the sort to stay away from sowing the seeds of a vendetta. Moreover, in tribal areas girls are wedded at an early age so that the responsibility passes on to her husband and kinsmen.

The reverence given to the status of women is also evident in Baluchistan where the bloodiest feud would come to an end if any woman from the opposing groups steps in and asks for 'ceasefire'! Of course no one would listen to a man!

[blazeofglory]

I think Burka is something that degrades womanhood or it belittles their existences.

I think Islam is a great religion, and represents a great mass of people and it engendered great art, literature and music. I am really moved by Sufism for it was through Islam it got its birth and culminated in something that is above religious divisions.

But when it comes to belittling womanhood with a Burka I feel really sad and it is something subdues humanity. '

It is of course fundamentalism, and fundamentalists are also simple humans and I feel equanimity. These fundamentalists need to be pitied fr they were programmed or indoctrinated.

Free will ? No it does not work mostly. We are victims and we cannot undo anything. We are specs blown by the wind of time and space.

I really am against Burka with due respect for Islam.

[JBI]

JBI> What is your definition of a country? And nation?

All people living in the same country need to share same religious beliefs to be part of that nation?

There are countries that describe themselves as Muslim countries - is it wrong now to call them that? Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, essentially all of the middle east (Israel included) - those are all States with a State religion in place - it is no crime to call them what they describe themselves as.

Likewise, Canada, virtually all of Europe, and the vast Majority of Asia, China included, are secular countries. Why then should their citizens not recognize the secular values of their society.

I don't like nation labels, as you know, but nationalism is totally tied to this issue - it has been since the early 20th century, with the fall of the Ottomans.


As many of you know, I am somewhat of a Canadian Nationalist (if such a thing isn't an oxymoron), and am prudent in my desire to establish Canada as an entity beyond a curiosity, or "America's Hat". But that has nothing to do with my moral responsibility, and I willingly criticize my country when I do not agree with policy, as is normal in a democracy. There is no reason why self determination, and a sense of self cannot be cultivated within the sphere of secularism, and acceptance.


In 1969 I visted Kabul and found all Afghan women, muslims or non-muslims, there clad in shirt/blouse and skirt in compliance to an Imperial edict by the then King of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah. As soon as the King was overthrown the same women switched over to their national dress of shalwar-qameez and burqa! This shows that any attempt to bring a 'forced cultural change' is not effective at all!

Burqa faded out in urban Pakistan some 20 years ago but the trend for it has mysteriously picked up again! I recall people deeming a burqa clad women as whores or women of dubious character...rightfully or wrongfully. But nowadays the burqa is regarded as a symbol of chastity by the same people who shunned it! What brought this change has yet to be studied. Educated women are opting for it in greater numbers voluntarily as compared to women in rural or backward areas where women is bound to cover herself from the imperatives of prevailing environment there. Since men are responsible for the safety and security of women in Islam (there is no 'genuine Islamic state' in the world to take up this responsibility....and even if it there like Saudi Arabia it stands second) their women have to take 'precautionary' measures to conceal their charm lest trouble starts. Feuds over women inherently extend to generations in a feudal society and there is hardly any end to blood shed.thus in a weak state women feel secure by wearing burqa or anything of the sort to stay away from sowing the seeds of a vendetta. Moreover, in tribal areas girls are wedded at an early age so that the responsibility passes on to her husband and kinsmen.

The reverence given to the status of women is also evident in Baluchistan where the bloodiest feud would come to an end if any woman from the opposing groups steps in and asks for 'ceasefire'! Of course no one would listen to a man!


It is actually quite possible to bring a force cultural change, and quite easier than one suspects - foot binding was abolished in essentially one generation, Martin Luther shook the church's foundation to the core, and destroyed it - social change can happen quickly.

As for these proofs, I thank you for the support to my arguments. Women needing to conceal their charms and be married off early lest they start a feud is clearly backward beyond belief by my reckoning, and I challenge any woman here to state that they would support their current country becoming culturally like that, where women are married off at a very young age, and denied exposure to anyone who isn't their husband. I stand by, and await someone to say, and justify, why this is somehow tolerable, and to say that they, as a woman keep in mind, that they believe this system is not only justifiable, but is one in which they would like to live.

[mazHur]

JBI> What is your definition of a country? And nation?

All people living in the same country need to share same religious beliefs to be part of that nation?

You cannot compare the culture of the rich countries with those of poor countries. Both types of cultures have their own implications, socially, anthropologically and economically. Can someone in America or the West imagine to live in a place where families live under one dollar a day ??

If you study the social and cultural history of the West or the Americas you will be shocked to see how they used to live. It took centuries to bring a social change...whereas places like Pakistan have a short history of 62 years, out of which 33 years went to Martial Laws!

Notwithstanding above, veiling has minimal concern with society or culture and perhaps this is the reason that educated and civilized Muslim women in the West are fastly opting for some sort of 'veiling, be it hijab, naqab, scarf or burqa. By suppressing their rights I think we would be entering yet another age of social and psychological oppression to women for ages to come.


As for Shehrzade's question, <<<<<<<<,
All people living in the same country need to share same religious beliefs to be part of that nation?<<<<<<<<<<<<<my answer is No. People in a country can share different beliefs and faiths and yet try to live in harmony as far as possible. Have a look at India where multi-religious population exists.....generally peacefully allowing grievances and fights to occasion at times. Why?? Simply because of unfortunate manifest
'loathings' by some for others

<<<<<What is your definition of a country? And nation?<<<<<<<<<

I do not think religions goes in the making of a nation in a territorial premise. Pakistan was created in the name of a separate homeland for Muslims of India and originally consisted on East Pakistan (present Bangla Desh) and West Pakistan (athe existing Pakistan) . This ideology failed in 1972 only after 22 years of its creation! Apart from other reasons, the underlying reasons were language, ethnic , cultural, social and economic differences and (alleged) oppression of one by the other wing.

Situations may be different elsewhere but this is what actually happened is recorded by modern history!

[bigben]

Wearing the burkha or the yamalke or a pectoral cross is simply none of my damn business. Nor is it the schools business or the state's business (as in France). Tax supported religious symbols are banned in the USA. Personal symbols are not.

Of course, I think it's demeaning to women. It's still none of my business.

If you're going to walk around naked, I'll be right over.:banana:

[mazHur]

If you're going to walk around naked, I'll be right over.


If 'walking around naked' was a universal custom I would. Because it isn't I doubt if you will be able to do that in places other than the West. Even there people will watch you with awe!:santasmil

[blazeofglory]

Women with a Burka on are really suppressed. No educated persons think this is right. If they do I think they are oppressors.

[mazHur]

@ Blaze

It's really not like that.
Veiling with a burqa, hijab, scarf or a gown is a woman's choice to dress up, why should someone have objection to her 'natural' right to choose?
Of course, enforcing burqa or scarf on women isn't fair....as done in some Middle Eastern Kingdoms through the instrument of regal edicts.

[blazeofglory]

@ Blaze

It's really not like that.
Veiling with a burqa, hijab, scarf or a gown is a woman's choice to dress up, why should someone have objection to her 'natural' right to choose?
Of course, enforcing burqa or scarf on women isn't fair....as done in some Middle Eastern Kingdoms through the instrument of regal edicts.

You are partly right.

But all I can say is women are conditioned to have a burga on themselves

[mazHur]

You are partly right.

But all I can say is women are conditioned to have a burga on themselves

I don't want to see the day when men would ask women to strip down and reveal themselves just because any dress they wear is unpleasant, disagreeable or obnoxious to them (the men!). :rolleyes:

[Gladys]

But all I can say is women are conditioned to have a burga on themselves

Isn't conditioning the basis for fashion, which has been more celebrated in the West than elsewhere?


Women with a Burka on are really suppressed.

Is this generalisation or universal truth? Just suppose one solitary woman wears the burka in the USA for reasons other than suppression or conditioning - say, as a protest or for protection. Should we compel her to desist in the name of liberation?

[mazHur]

I just stumbled across this article on Purdah and the Status of Women In Islam and am posting it here for the general information of all those who may be interested.
This however does not imply my complete concordance with the views of the author mentioned.

http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=quran%2Bpurdah+verses&xa=8eSKOBepw02ZuXEaO5S5NA--%2C1252626622&fr=moz35&u=www.al-islamforall.org/Misc/purdah.pdf&w=quran+purdah+verses&d=QZ3Gzd29TV1J&icp=1&.intl=us

[JBI]

Isn't conditioning the basis for fashion, which has been more celebrated in the West than elsewhere?



Is this generalisation or universal truth? Just suppose one solitary woman wears the burka in the USA for reasons other than suppression or conditioning - say, as a protest or for protection. Should we compel her to desist in the name of liberation?

Yes, for the simple reason that a woman shouldn't need to cover herself up in order not to be raped - it is the responsibility of men to not rape a woman, not of a woman to make herself undesirable and therefore not entice men - the whole psychology is out of whack - woman should be able to wear whatever they want without fear of being violated - this whole notion of suppressing male violence by denying oneself sexual identity is backward and puts the blame of these acts onto the women themselves, for being "enticing" and "immodest" - in other words, for being human, and being beautiful.

The excuse of needing protection, or needing to not stop men fighting over women is completely immoral in itself - any man worth marrying will naturally be one who will respect the decision of a woman to determine who she wishes to marry for herself - the actual shifting of the burden onto the woman, forcing her to sacrifice identity for the sake of maintaining a sort of peace between men is unjustifiable under a system that respects the rights of women in self-determination.


I just stumbled across this article on Purdah and the Status of Women In Islam and am posting it here for the general information of all those who may be interested.
This however does not imply my complete concordance with the views of the author mentioned.

http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=quran%2Bpurdah+verses&xa=8eSKOBepw02ZuXEaO5S5NA--%2C1252626622&fr=moz35&u=www.al-islamforall.org/Misc/purdah.pdf&w=quran+purdah+verses&d=QZ3Gzd29TV1J&icp=1&.intl=us

If you look at traditional practices though, in non-Western countries, you will find that nudism isn't in itself a shameful act - in truth, in Bali Indonesia, for instance, up until recently (that is, the last 30 years), women normally did not cover their chests. In artwork, in traditional garb, women, of all ages, are shown in nonproductive ways while remaining topless - the question of needing to cover up, as a means of maintaining a sort of modesty of a set of "family values" is a mere construction based on misinterpretation of the Bible, and a sense of shame resulting from such unconnected things as geography (weather in this case determining the necessity for clothing), as well as traditional misogyny, in the sense of not wanting anybody else to have a view of one's own "property".

The act of concealment is an act of, essentially suppression - the act of total concealment, in the case of the Burka is as close as one can get to total concealment of identity outside of a limited sphere - the bedroom.

[Nightshade]

What if we turn the coin, then? Can we not say that because of this intolerant (and very aggressive) attitude (in the East) towards the West and anything non-Muslim that the West is is wary of the Islam and does not want the consistent reminder of their fundementalist attitudes towards themselves in the form of burkas and other religious displays?

I think Islam has enjoyed an everlasting freedom in the West. I cannot imagine any chruches or synanogues in Muslim countries having anti-Islamic meetings and broadcasting anti-Islamic propaganda only to get away with it on the grounds of equality or human rights. However, these things happen here in the UK almost daily.

I am not suggesting that Muslims who live in the West should not practise their religion but when they demand these freedoms, they should also do a little soul searching to see whether they actually offer the same kind of understanding towards others who do not share their own point of views.

I kind of juts want to say hear hear! people need to think before they open their mouths. But I do have to say something, its just gone 4 islamic years since the flare up of the anti veil debate in the UK, and just have to say if there was ever a stupider pice of timing than when that started I have yet to hear it.



By that token, we now have a problem - what is the line between morality and cultural sensitivity?

Morality is both relative and subjective, though. Take Kosher and Halal meat ( i mean the butchering technique) alot of people concider it to be both inhumane and immoral, but I for one have no problem with it. I think meat tastes better that way ( and the differnce in taste is certainly palable).



That's how I see the whole issue - if you can't accept your new home as your home, than don't bother coming - multiculturalism is one thing, directly allowing things deemed immoral to continue because someone happens to hold them in high regard is another. It's not the west's responsibility to cater to the demands of people wishing to be accepted by it - it is the job of the society to ensure equality between all citizens - likewise, equality comes with the responsibility of respecting, and sacrificing for the sake of others - the Burka does not, and cannot function compatibly with the values of the host society, and, if it is too big a sacrifice to not wear it, people need not come as far as I am concerned.
.
Ok with all that but you are forgetting the western muslims, people like my mum who converted but are as english as manchester rain. Or are what about people who are born in a country and never lived anywhere different or are you saying ( and I know you are not what I am tryiong to point out here is the way you have gone about saying it leaves this massive great gapping hole in your argument) that anyone who doesnt conforme is acutomatcally an 'alien' and interloper Id revise the statment if I were you JBI or tighten it up somehoe you are running the risk of coming across as xenophobic.

Having said all that I do agree that it is ridiculous to move to a new country and just excpetc to carry on as if you were back where you just left. In which case why did you leave? But at the same time we all have to dmit its not just the case of th muslim communities doing this, all sorts of migrant communties ( and really the majority of muslims in western countries are not migrants themselves but like most ( if not lets face practically all the people in certain coutries) decendant from migrants.




Isn't conditioning the basis for fashion, which has been more celebrated in the West than elsewhere?
Now I want to say something here, I was born and spent a big chunk of my 'formative' years in Suadi Arabia and it is probably as I direct result of this that I find abayah the epitme of eleagance and Im kind of addicted to checking out the latest abayah/jilbab fashions. Ive even been known to cross the road and stop someone to gush over her abayah. But I don't own one, a) because I figureit will only cause me undue hassle and b) I know they would never look as good on me as they do on other people. But one day I may well crack and buy myself a pretty one just to hang in my cupboard and go ooooh look at my pretty abayah. But that is just me.

[mazHur]

it is the responsibility of men to not rape a woman, not of a woman to make herself undesirable and therefore not entice men

Prevention is better than cure.
It's natural for men to get enticed even by unsuspecting women; Cain and Abel faced the same problem with a woman; more recently an American President (Jackson, perhaps) had to fight a 'duel' for the sake of a woman!
Women are the greatest gifts of God to men, more precious than the Koh-e-noor; they have to be protected from the evil designs of men, men without humanistic scruples, men who think women worth pebbles to sexually play with and seek pleasure; men who are enticed by diamonds lying in the open unlocked, uncovered, unprotected. Valuables such as diamonds need to be 'kept' at a safer 'place' so as not to entice thieves.
So, if you don't and someone steals them it's not the fault of the 'diamonds' but the 'thief'!




this whole notion of suppressing male violence by denying oneself sexual identity is backward and puts the blame of these acts onto the women themselves, for being "enticing" and "immodest" - in other words, for being human, and being beautiful.

Men have no right to something which they don't own....
If the moon doesn't appear or is hidden behind the clouds, men have no right to cuss her! Why should ' feminine beauty' be made so open and cheaper for men's selfish pleasure??






The excuse of needing protection, or needing to not stop men fighting over women is completely immoral in itself - any man worth marrying will naturally be one who will respect the decision of a woman to determine who she wishes to marry for herself - the actual shifting of the burden onto the woman, forcing her to sacrifice identity for the sake of maintaining a sort of peace between men is unjustifiable under a system that respects the rights of women in self-determination.


havn't you heard the old adage,WOMEN FIRST!!
In times of peace or war, it has always been Women (and children by extension) FIRST. That's the human motto, that's the historical rule since the beginning of time!






If you look at traditional practices though, in non-Western countries, you will find that nudism isn't in itself a shameful act - in truth, in Bali Indonesia, for instance, up until recently (that is, the last 30 years), women normally did not cover their chests. In artwork, in traditional garb, women, of all ages, are shown in nonproductive ways while remaining topless - the question of needing to cover up, as a means of maintaining a sort of modesty of a set of "family values" is a mere construction based on misinterpretation of the Bible, and a sense of shame resulting from such unconnected things as geography (weather in this case determining the necessity for clothing), as well as traditional misogyny, in the sense of not wanting anybody else to have a view of one's own "property".


absurd!
Nobody is expected to follow someone else against his will.
there might still be remnants of cannibalism in some parts of Africa or South America, but we cannot compare that with universal custom and practices. In indian you can't slaughter a cow, in Muslim countries you won't get pigs,
in Korea dogs are eaten---all this doesn't mean that we should also follow any one of them for their notions or practices.


The act of concealment is an act of, essentially suppression - the act of total concealment, in the case of the Burka is as close as one can get to total concealment of identity outside of a limited sphere - the bedroom.


Next time you go out go tossing your dollars and diamonds on your hand in Manhattan or down town or where ever you are! No need to conceal yourself in a locked 'house' for fear of thieves, weather and other social factors.
Man, women are like hearts to be 'concealed' inside the breasts of men!
In this age of 'cyber sex' let's do some travel and universally positive thinking!

[TheFifthElement]

Yes, for the simple reason that a woman shouldn't need to cover herself up in order not to be raped - it is the responsibility of men to not rape a woman, not of a woman to make herself undesirable and therefore not entice men - the whole psychology is out of whack - woman should be able to wear whatever they want without fear of being violated - this whole notion of suppressing male violence by denying oneself sexual identity is backward and puts the blame of these acts onto the women themselves, for being "enticing" and "immodest" - in other words, for being human, and being beautiful.

The excuse of needing protection, or needing to not stop men fighting over women is completely immoral in itself - any man worth marrying will naturally be one who will respect the decision of a woman to determine who she wishes to marry for herself - the actual shifting of the burden onto the woman, forcing her to sacrifice identity for the sake of maintaining a sort of peace between men is unjustifiable under a system that respects the rights of women in self-determination.


JBI, I wish everyone thought like this. What a beautiful statement.

[Nightshade]

eh never mind... Ive said it all before. Its neither good or bad in itself but can and is used to opress some people at the same time for other it can be used as an expression of freedom or defiance.

[Bergbau]

Is it demeaning towards women?
Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
Should it be the woman's prerogative?
If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?

This has been motivated by recent political developments, but I'm sure we can keep politics out of this discussion?
I was standing on the corner of the street outside my home earlier today watching the faces of the women struggling by. I think burkas should be compulsory.

[JBI]

Prevention is better than cure.
It's natural for men to get enticed even by unsuspecting women; Cain and Abel faced the same problem with a woman; more recently an American President (Jackson, perhaps) had to fight a 'duel' for the sake of a woman!
Women are the greatest gifts of God to men, more precious than the Koh-e-noor; they have to be protected from the evil designs of men, men without humanistic scruples, men who think women worth pebbles to sexually play with and seek pleasure; men who are enticed by diamonds lying in the open unlocked, uncovered, unprotected. Valuables such as diamonds need to be 'kept' at a safer 'place' so as not to entice thieves.
So, if you don't and someone steals them it's not the fault of the 'diamonds' but the 'thief'!


I'm not an American, nor was I alive when Jackson was president (150 years ago), so that is none of my business, but all this talk is kind of silly, no?

Isn't it the responsibility of the government, and the justice system to protect women? and beyond that, isn't it the responsibility of men to not commit offenses against women? As far as I know, women weren't part of the Cain and Abel narrative, but perhaps you are reading a different version, or choosing to interpret it that way.

I think the whole mentality of protecting women in this sort of way both cheapens men and women - when I walk down the street, even if I were to see the most beautiful woman imaginable, I would still have no desire to violate her, as I have no desire to violate any woman, as no respectable person would ever violate anybody - it's as simple as that, men are born with the capacity to be equal to women, in terms of morality, by denying women expression, you aren't fixing or preventing a problem, you aren't enforcing an equality, merely reducing both man and women to filthy beasts.


The rights of women do need to protected, and woman's right to not be violated must be ensured by the government, the law, and men in general - you don't prevent a problem by simply reducing the female for the sake of making them less attractive - anybody who has studied criminology will tell you that the act of rape isn't generally committed for "the sex", but rather for psychological reasons, mostly having to do with dominance.

Beyond that too, it should be noted, that the vast majority (something like 91%) of rapes occur between people who know each other. Are you suggesting that the Burka is going to remove domestic violence as well? Is it going to make a woman so undesirable to her partner that she isn't subject to spousal rape, which just recently was made legal in several countries where Burka wearing is popular?


Canada, statistically, has one of the highest rape rates in the world - does that mean more women are raped in Canada though, or that more people are willing to seek justice? Is there any proof that violence against women is avoided by locking them up, and if so, isn't the act of locking women up a violence in and of itself?


It's not as if countries that feature such "chaste laws" are really, in terms of violence against women, any better. The UAE, for instance, is one of the most notorious importers of sexual slaves - the gulf itself is a region where a disturbing amount of sexual traffic occurs - Saudi Arabia imports women by the hundreds of thousands - the Iraq war has caused the emergence of untold sexual crimes, while Syria, a predominantly Muslim country, has reaped all the benefits of tourism as a result.

But there are historic precedents to consider as well - the infamous Arab Sex Trade, which ran for centuries was hardly any more humane than anything else - the rates of sexual violence today in areas where Burkas are prevalent are hardly any different.

So where is the justification? Like I said, Canada has a high rate of sexual abuse - does that mean that Canadians are more rape-crazy, or that we merely don't turn a blind eye to it?


Where is the proof then, that the Burka has any effect of reducing sexual crimes against women? Where is the proof that it is having any of those effects?


As for your bit about men having no right to things they don't own, I'm of the mind that no man can own a woman, which, historically, has not been the case in prodominantly Muslim countries (as seen by, again, the notorious Arab Sex trade, and contemporary human trafficking especially around the Gulf). In what sense then, is the Burka needed - it is the role of the citizens of countries who respect human rights, and the rights of women to maintain a standard which enables women to not be violated - not the responsibility of women to degrade themselves, in an ineffective (clearly) way of making themselves undesirable.

No man can own a woman, so why then must a woman sell herself to a man for security?

[mazHur]

I'm not an American, nor was I alive when Jackson was president (150 years ago), so that is none of my business, but all this talk is kind of silly, no?

Of course it's silly to think of being alive today after Jackson, ain't it?
If you are not an American then you are not something out of this world who shuts his eyes to history and refuses to learn lesson from it.



Isn't it the responsibility of the government, and the justice system to protect women?

No doubt about it but again it is conditional upon true enforcement of law and justice.



isn't it the responsibility of men to not commit offenses against women?


again it is but both men (and women) commit offenses despite laws. Can you tell why?



I think the whole mentality of protecting women in this sort of way both cheapens men and women

this is a new theory I ever heard! On the one hand you say state laws should protect women and men should not molest them but in the same breath you also say protection of the weaker and fairer sex makes men cheaper! This is amazing! Why do you 'insult' women by saying they cannot protect themselves the way they wanted within the laws and general and universal code of moral and ethics?



- when I walk down the street, even if I were to see the most beautiful woman imaginable, I would still have no desire to violate her, as I have no desire to violate any woman,

YOu are not an exception and you can't violate a woman like that without facing the music!
However, if the beauty of a woman doesn't impress you than I doubt something is wrong with you.



men are born with the capacity to be equal to women, in terms of morality, by denying women expression, you aren't fixing or preventing a problem, you aren't enforcing an equality, merely reducing both man and women to filthy beasts.


How does a hijab, a scarf or a burqa 'enforce' equality (or inequality )between genders when as a matter of fact both genders are differently built
but for one another? Why should men over-demand from women to satiate their own selfish pleasure?? Why don't women think about women the way you, as a man, think about them?? Men and women are equal in Qualities but unequal physically yet perhaps stronger than men in various other emotional and spiritual aspects.



anybody who has studied criminology will tell you that the act of rape isn't generally committed for "the sex", but rather for psychological reasons, mostly having to do with dominance.

this would then apply equally to women with and without burqa, depnding upon the first opportunity the rapist gets to lay his hands on a woman! This is why women have to be protected against men as you never know what's in their hearts after seeing a lovely chic!

Have another look at criminology to know if women have also been accused of 'raping' men and committing crimes against men.





Beyond that too, it should be noted, that the vast majority (something like 91%) of rapes occur between people who know each other.

not here in Pakistan, at least.


Are you suggesting that the Burka is going to remove domestic violence as well?

domestic violence is a different issue....not linked with burqa. If it were there would have been no such violence.



Is it going to make a woman so undesirable to her partner that she isn't subject to spousal rape, which just recently was made legal in several countries where Burka wearing is popular?


O man! as over-eating may lead to indigestion or choking too much exposure of feminine 'surface' also tends to lessen and sicken the appetite (or libido, as you may like to call it)! Fed up with over-sighting nudity and semi-nudity men go (to the 42nd st NY) for 'peep shows'! How sweet it is to sight a girl for a while when suddenly the automatic shutter drops down to cut the view and you have to insert coin after coin just to have another 'peep'! just like 'stolen kisses are the sweetest' the burqa-clad women 'pulls' her man's heart out as she 'unravels' her stocked beauty! Ah, how could you know!



Canada, statistically, has one of the highest rape rates in the world - does that mean more women are raped in Canada though, or that more people are willing to seek justice?

WE have the lowest rate of rape, divorce and illegal children in Pakistan.
YOu live in Canada you can judge the factors for such offenses there for yourself


Is there any proof that violence against women is avoided by locking them up, and if so, isn't the act of locking women up a violence in and of itself?


Who 'locks' up women?? At least no body does here.
As for burqa it is for the women to choose....however, there are some tribal and ethnic communities which demand women to wear burqa or some sort of covering for reasons of environmental and customary reasons.



It's not as if countries that feature such "chaste laws" are really, in terms of violence against women, any better.

The enforcement of so-called 'chaste laws' by absolute Kings is beyond comment as imperial laws are no less than tyranny. However, some women there accept that tyranny while others 'aspire' for it under the Western Influence. But one thing is sure...if there is a complaint by a woman against a man that man, a molester or a rapist , loses his head 'in due earnest!'
At least the harsh punishments there prevent crimes against women and others more than at any other place.



The UAE, for instance, is one of the most notorious importers of sexual slaves - the gulf itself is a region where a disturbing amount of sexual traffic occurs - Saudi Arabia imports women by the hundreds of thousands - the Iraq war has caused the emergence of untold sexual crimes, while Syria, a predominantly Muslim country, has reaped all the benefits of tourism as a result.

True, the UAE is replete with blatant 'prostitution' and all things Muslim regard as 'evil'. But since UAE is ruled by Princes they make their own laws,,,,
Saudis are different. they are rich and spoiled and are said to indulge in human trafficking such as small children for camel races and 'purchasing' women from poorer countries whom they keep as wives,mistresses or concubines ! But all this has nothing to do with 'burqa' or the injunctions of Islam! Syrians and who isn't violating the divine laws? The rich are the tourists who visit poor countries where women are their main target of exploitation through pelf! Shame on such men!
As far as Iraq is concerned I will not comment as much worse could be expected in a war-ridden place. In the long run it's the fairer women who suffer the most, and children! I wish the war get over soon!

In UAE or Saudi Arabia action upon a woman's complaint is immediate and the rapist will surely have his throat cut and body thrown to dogs at once!
Have you ever thought why justice is not imparted so quickly in other countries??




- the rates of sexual violence to day in areas where Burkas are prevalent are hardly any different.

this is not true but a mere propaganda.


So where is the justification? Like I said, Canada has a high rate of sexual abuse - does that mean that Canadians are more rape-crazy, or that we merely don't turn a blind eye to it?

This should be a food for thought for you!
We don't have this problem in Pakistan ---burqa or no burqa!



Where is the proof then, that the Burka has any effect of reducing sexual crimes against women? Where is the proof that it is having any of those effects?

Make a trip to Saudia and find out after teasing a woman in the street!




As for your bit about men having no right to things they don't own, I'm of the mind that no man can own a woman,

By 'owning' I meant in the same sense as owning and disowning! Your family owns you, you own or disown your family, don't you?


In what sense then, is the Burka needed - it is the role of the citizens of countries who respect human rights, and the rights of women to maintain a standard which enables women to not be violated - not the responsibility of women to degrade themselves, in an ineffective (clearly) way of making themselves undesirable.

You are witnessing against yourself by first stating the deplorable condition in Canada, your home country, where no burqa is worn. You should ask yourself how 'women molestation' could be eradicated in your own burqa-less country before you criticize others. However, in the going I may write to say that gender crime will never end but has a tendency to decrease with women not intermixing and not exposing their charms and adornments to public! The lesser the thing greater the demand!




No man can own a woman, so why then must a woman sell herself to a man for security?

I am my wife's slave, any objections??

[The Atheist]

not here in Pakistan, at least.

I know that was aimed at JBI, but you have made some points which seem either blatantly or naively wrong.

Your comment was in response to JBI's point about 90% of rapes being committed by someone they know.

You say Pakistan is different and that isn't the case there.

I flatly refute that.

In most cases of rape by a family member or close friend in Pakistan, the victim is discouraged - or worse - to report it by society, tradition and fear.


O man! as over-eating may lead to indigestion or choking too much exposure of feminine 'surface' also tends to lessen and sicken the appetite (or libido, as you may like to call it)! Fed up with over-sighting nudity and semi-nudity men go (to the 42nd st NY) for 'peep shows'! How sweet it is to sight a girl for a while when suddenly the automatic shutter drops down to cut the view and you have to insert coin after coin just to have another 'peep'! just like 'stolen kisses are the sweetest' the burqa-clad women 'pulls' her man's heart out as she 'unravels' her stocked beauty! Ah, how could you know!

This is absurd.

You are making generalisations (and incorrect linkage) on the basis of an extremely small minority of men who visit peep shows. Reality doesn't work anything like you suggest.


WE have the lowest rate of rape, divorce and illegal children in Pakistan.
YOu live in Canada you can judge the factors for such offenses there for yourself

Reported crime does not reflect actual crime in your society. Need I mention the completely wrongly-named "honour killings"?

What are "illegal children"?

Your claims are a bit like Ahmadinejad's claims that there is no homophobia or laws against homosexuality in Iran because there are no homosexuals.


In UAE or Saudi Arabia action upon a woman's complaint is immediate and the rapist will surely have his throat cut and body thrown to dogs at once!
Have you ever thought why justice is not imparted so quickly in other countries??

This is assertion without basis. On the evidence of women who have been stoned for adultery after claiming rape, I'm very sceptical of how Saudis in particular deal with rape allegations.

[mazHur]

I know that was aimed at JBI, but you have made some points which seem either blatantly or naively wrong.

Your comment was in response to JBI's point about 90% of rapes being committed by someone they know.

You say Pakistan is different and that isn't the case there.

I flatly refute that.

In most cases of rape by a family member or close friend in Pakistan, the victim is discouraged - or worse - to report it by society, tradition and fear.


You are mistaken. If the cases are not reported how have you come to discover?
Yes, Pakistan is different. I live in Pakistan not you. Keep believing in propaganda and a few oddities if you want but situation is Pakistan is 95 % better than the West in this regard.




This is absurd.

You are making generalisations (and incorrect linkage) on the basis of an extremely small minority of men who visit peep shows. Reality doesn't work anything like you suggest.

Why absurd? don't men enjoy peep shows ( given the first opportunity)??




Reported crime does not reflect actual crime in your society. Need I mention the completely wrongly-named "honour killings"?


the so-called 'honor killings' have no bearing with burqa and is off topic.
Honor killing is a tribal and feudal custom in a few areas of Pakistan, already under controversy. There are a few more terrible tribal practices but they have nothing to do with burqa or Islam. Crime has many faces....not burqa!


What are "illegal children"?

I tried to be 'neat' but as you insist 'illegal children' are nullius fillius or simply 'bastards'.


Your claims are a bit like Ahmadinejad's claims that there is no homophobia or laws against homosexuality in Iran because there are no homosexuals.


I have nothing to do with nejad...and this topic is restricted to Burqa only.
Homosexuals usually do not declare themselves as such in the first instance
(check out history) but later in years. I won't say homosexuality isn't there in Iran or Pakistan but that's a covert affair there and you never know. And if they are caught ..............swish...there goes their neck or they might be stoned to death, at least in Saudia!



This is assertion without basis. On the evidence of women who have been stoned for adultery after claiming rape, I'm very sceptical of how Saudis in particular deal with rape allegations.

There is a difference between rape and fornication. Yes, if rape or fornication is proved, there is death penalty for it in Saudia. for you enlightenment I must add that there is NO imprisonment for women in Islam for any criminal offense and it is nearly impossible in normal cases to prove rape as well because you need 4 adult upright people as eye witnesses of the act. That has never happened and not a SINGLE Muslim woman has thus been punished for rape...that being none of her fault.
If there are incidences otherwise that's not Islamic but Imperial or political act of men!

[Nightshade]

Eh wait WHAT? Umm MazHur Im fairly certain you got that the wrong way round, its only fornication or adultury ( and especially adultury) and thus stones/whips if the act itself is seen by 4 witnesses of good chachater and all four witness statments match up.

rape doesnt have to be obsevred to be proven.

[mazHur]

Eh wait WHAT? Umm MazHur Im fairly certain you got that the wrong way round, its only fornication or adultury ( and especially adultury) and thus stones/whips if the act itself is seen by 4 witnesses of good chachater and all four witness statments match up.

rape doesnt have to be obsevred to be proven.

Thanks Shade for correction. in my attempt to escape details I got the wrong way round. yes, punishment for adultery for unmarried and married Muslims is different, more severe for the married.

The condition of 4 eye witness of high esteem and concurrence between their statements is such a great burden of proof to condemn a women of adultery that Islam ensures women the greatest respect and honor of all!

It also goes without saying that Islam lays severe punishment for falsely accusing a woman of adultery.



What else does a woman need to live an honorable life in this world??
the total liability of maintaining his wife and children and providing them safety and security lies on the man!!

[Nightshade]

right, just to be clear though rape is completly different from adultury or fornication. :D

[JBI]

You missed my points entirely, but I'll just address one now, as I am a little tired of arguing.

Canada doesn't have a higher occurrence of rape than other countries, it has a higher occurrence of people seeking justice for sexual abuses committed against them - as such, our rate is more than double that of the United States, but I would argue the frequency of the crime being committed is hardly different at all - likewise, our reported rates of spousal abuse are higher, but I would wager the occurrence is roughly the same in most developed countries.

When we consider the data, we notice that certain countries have dismally low rates. Japan for instance has a dismally low rate, but arguably the frequency is similar to that of other countries - the culture itself shuns the reporting of such crimes.

Saudi Arabia has a rate of 0.27/100 000 people. Does this mean that there is that much less rape occurring there than the 77.64/100 000 in Canada, or that merely the culture is prohibitive of social justice? The vast importation of sexual slaves to the country would suggest quite a different picture all together, yet the rates can't lie, right?

I guess Pakistan is the exception though right? If people are so fundamentally driven with these repulsive sexual drives, how it is that they are suppressed in your country exactly? I'm with The Atheist in thinking you are playing into the Ahmadinejad argument of "it doesn't exist here".


right, just to be clear though rape is completly different from adultury or fornication. :D

In a sense, but in countries that have legalized spousal rape, in the sense that a man is allowed to demand sex from his wife(s) whenever he wants it, the line is blurred, as is the case in many countries, perhaps significantly in one poster's country where "rape doesn't occur", Pakistan, which essentially makes it completely legal. To what extent then, can we define the difference between "consent", and "rape"? Is an old man marrying a prepubescent girl, for instance, "rape", or merely a good time? Depends on the country. Saudi Arabia, I hear, is recently changing their law to consider it illegal (after I believe it was a 60 year old man married something like an 8 year old), but is that rape?

The actual conceptualization of violence against women is not agreed upon by all countries (though, most Western countries adhere to a similar code, as pointed out by UN Charters against women). The actual frequency of sexual slavery in some countries discredits any real argument of "rape not occurring in my country", or "rape doesn't exist in Pakistan", or "the Burka stops women from being raped".

Just googling for a second, I found this article http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/236/Rape-Sexual-Harassment-Around-World.html

[Scheherazade]

A reminder of the OP:
Is it demeaning towards women?
Is it a legitimate affirmation of one's culture?
Should it be the woman's prerogative?
If crucifixes and other religious symbols are banned from certain schools, should the burka be as well?
Should the aforementioned religious symbols be banned at all?

This has been motivated by recent political developments, but I'm sure we can keep politics out of this discussion? If there are any other burning issues you would like to discuss, please start another thread.

Further off-topic posts will be removed.

[mazHur]

just received these comments from an American lady Psychologist the contents of which are self-explanatory and serve as good ‘food for thought’

“……perhaps the major reasons the West hates the veils (any type) so much is that:

1. It prevents women’s bodies from being displayed like pieces of meat to the public.
(The US has an incredibly high incidence of sexual assault — one in four women)

2. Westerners think that veiled women might not spend so much money on cosmetics, clothes, fashion accessories, etc.
(In the US, more money is spent on cosmetics alone than on public education. Big, big business.)”

another point of view....


''One more notion that just hit my head is that “burqa also serves as a ‘uniform’–an overall— for a community such as the Muslim women the same way as a ’sari’ is generally understood to be a Hindu dress though some Indian Muslim women also wear it.''

[JBI]

It has a connection, because you justified the Burka as a preventative rape measure - if you can prove that it is used as a justifiable mechanism against sexual assault, than you have an argument, otherwise, you will, arguably, need to withdraw your comments, as they don't hold to the evidence - show me, from a credible source, proof that the burka is directly responsible for improving the quality of life for women, and reducing both violence in general, as well as domestic violence, and I will agree with you, but until you can show such things, you are, arguably, merely clouding your head with fallacy. Saying rape doesn't exist in Pakistan isn't good enough - in fact, it probably isn't fair to a) the victims of the crime, and b) the offenders who should be brought to justice.

[mazHur]

It has a connection, because you justified the Burka as a preventative rape measure - if you can prove that it is used as a justifiable mechanism against sexual assault, than you have an argument, otherwise, you will, arguably, need to withdraw your comments, as they don't hold to the evidence - show me, from a credible source, proof that the burka is directly responsible for improving the quality of life for women, and reducing both violence in general, as well as domestic violence, and I will agree with you, but until you can show such things, you are, arguably, merely clouding your head with fallacy. Saying rape doesn't exist in Pakistan isn't good enough - in fact, it probably isn't fair to a) the victims of the crime, and b) the offenders who should be brought to justice.


Only English law is enforced in the country. The so-called Huddood Laws 1979 drawn by a tyrant ,who vainly tried to 'test' them to 'shut the people up' , now only exist on paper. Hence there is no gain in discussing them.
Yes, I can bet that if Islamic punishments are truly enforced and burqa is adopted by women as in Saudia there would hardly be any mentionable incident of rape (forced assault). Let not your mind waver with the redundant hand-picked wordings of the late Ordinance drafted to suit the rule of an ex tyrant---that's now history!

[JBI]

Only English law is enforced in the country. The so-called Huddood Laws 1979 drawn by a tyrant ,who vainly tried to 'test' them to 'shut the people up' , now only exist on paper. Hence there is no gain in discussing them.
Yes, I can bet that if Islamic punishments are truly enforced and burqa is adopted by women as in Saudia there would hardly be any mentionable incident of rape (forced assault). Let not your mind waver with the redundant hand-picked wordings of the late Ordinance drafted to suit the rule of an ex tyrant---that's now history!

Footnote please? Prove it - as far as I have read, you have posted no proof to back up your claims in the effectiveness of the Burka as a preventative measure against sexual assault, nor have you justified that there is any correlation between the Burka, and women's rights. Ahmadinejad claims aren't going to convince anyone here, hate to break it to you, so if you wish to go about convincing people, please deliver some statistical information to give credit to what you have said - preferably something credible.

[mazHur]

Footnote please? Prove it - as far as I have read, you have posted no proof to back up your claims in the effectiveness of the Burka as a preventative measure against sexual assault, nor have you justified that there is any correlation between the Burka, and women's rights. Ahmadinejad claims aren't going to convince anyone here, hate to break it to you, so if you wish to go about convincing people, please deliver some statistical information to give credit to what you have said - preferably something credible.

You are free to google stats....if stats. satisfy you.

The proof of the Burqa in preventing rape could be evidenced in places where it is worn or practiced and human rights are protected by Islamic laws. Such an example is Saudi Arabia and perhaps Maldives. By extension, burqa is common in the Northern Frontier parts of Pakistan where rape cases are rare not mainly due to religious protection but by the typical tribal societal and social structure of the locality.

It is very unwise of someone to lay the protection of women rights and elimination of possibility of rape merely on the burqa or hijab. We live in a world of humans and are not free from good and evil human urges towards one another. Burqa or no burqa, the basics lie in the enforcement of law and justice. If Islamic penal code is applied there would be an end to almost all crimes in the world (by Islamic standards). But this is not possible, I realize, without the establishment of a true Islamic Welfare State which doesn't exist anywhere so far.

The bad Talibans are tribal people who want to enforce Islamic laws as they interpret them according to themselves. This was oppressive of them which most Muslims also detested and they got into trouble with the west as well. However, you cannot cite one example of women raped by them during their short 'rule' in Afghanistan!!! This is also a proof that burqa plus Islamic laws kill crime!

I am not Ahmadinijad's brothers keeper. He may be having his own views and assertions, I am telling you what i know to the best of my experience, belief and knowledge. Take it or leave it.

If you still insist on being 'convinced' i may suggest you visit some countries including Iran, Saudia and Pakistan for a better understanding of 'burqa, 'women rights' and allied factors (such as enforcement of law and justice).

[The Atheist]

There is a difference between rape and fornication. Yes, if rape or fornication is proved, there is death penalty for it in Saudia. for you enlightenment I must add that there is NO imprisonment for women in Islam for any criminal offense and it is nearly impossible in normal cases to prove rape as well because you need 4 adult upright people as eye witnesses of the act. That has never happened and not a SINGLE Muslim woman has thus been punished for rape...that being none of her fault.
If there are incidences otherwise that's not Islamic but Imperial or political act of men!

Bolding mine.

That's exactly what I meant in terms of how the crime is viewed in Pakistan.

Have you ever wondered why islamic law says that if a woman allows herself to be alone with a non-relative male, it is the woman who's punished?

If protection of women from the roving eyes and bodies of hormone-crazy men, surely it would be the men who are punished and not the women?

Instead of women wearing burqa, should all men be blindfolded in public?

[JBI]

You are free to google stats....if stats. satisfy you.

The proof of the Burqa in preventing rape could be evidenced in places where it is worn or practiced and human rights are protected by Islamic laws. Such an example is Saudi Arabia and perhaps Maldives. By extension, burqa is common in the Northern Frontier parts of Pakistan where rape cases are rare not mainly due to religious protection but by the typical tribal societal and social structure of the locality.

It is very unwise of someone to lay the protection of women rights and elimination of possibility of rape merely on the burqa or hijab. We live in a world of humans and are not free from good and evil human urges towards one another. Burqa or no burqa, the basics lie in the enforcement of law and justice. If Islamic penal code is applied there would be an end to almost all crimes in the world (by Islamic standards). But this is not possible, I realize, without the establishment of a true Islamic Welfare State which doesn't exist anywhere so far.

The bad Talibans are tribal people who want to enforce Islamic laws as they interpret them according to themselves. This was oppressive of them which most Muslims also detested and they got into trouble with the west as well. However, you cannot cite one example of women raped by them during their short 'rule' in Afghanistan!!! This is also a proof that burqa plus Islamic laws kill crime!

I am not Ahmadinijad's brothers keeper. He may be having his own views and assertions, I am telling you what i know to the best of my experience, belief and knowledge. Take it or leave it.

If you still insist on being 'convinced' i may suggest you visit some countries including Iran, Saudia and Pakistan for a better understanding of 'burqa, 'women rights' and allied factors (such as enforcement of law and justice).

Well, since you are reluctant to back your claims up with anything substantial besides your "the best of [your] experience, belief and knowledge," I guess I might as well just dismiss everything you say as anecdotal and unproven.

It's not my job to try and prove your exaggerated claims - the fact that I asked for evidence is proof enough that I don't believe much of what you say - it is your job to back up what you say, otherwise your arguments fold for lack of credibility.


Bolding mine.

That's exactly what I meant in terms of how the crime is viewed in Pakistan.

Have you ever wondered why islamic law says that if a woman allows herself to be alone with a non-relative male, it is the woman who's punished?

If protection of women from the roving eyes and bodies of hormone-crazy men, surely it would be the men who are punished and not the women?

Instead of women wearing burqa, should all men be blindfolded in public?

Why bother - most men can control themselves, and as said before, most sexual assault occurs between people who know each other - usually intimately - it's degrading to both men and women to suggest that unless a woman is essentially invisible (besides perhaps her hands) that she is going to get violated when she walks down the street.

[mazHur]

Bolding mine.

That's exactly what I meant in terms of how the crime is viewed in Pakistan.

Have you ever wondered why islamic law says that if a woman allows herself to be alone with a non-relative male, it is the woman who's punished?

If protection of women from the roving eyes and bodies of hormone-crazy men, surely it would be the men who are punished and not the women?

Instead of women wearing burqa, should all men be blindfolded in public?

You are wrong! Women are not dumb or like little babies in the cradle who would not complain after being raped. Alleging rape is other than 'proving rape' which is open for every victim to do but rape cases are not as heinously gross here as in the US (one in four women).


No woman is punished if she goes out to do shopping, attend office etc without a relative male. However, unlike the West NO stranger can come to her house and ask her to join in for a dinner or date. There is absolutely no concept of 'dating' in our culture...and if any woman dares do it and is caught she is liable not only at law but for a greater trouble on the family and social level.

There is no need for us to follow the West in many cultural and social matters.
For example if you kissed your wife in public you would be jailed! That's the law of the place!

A day will come when those who do not believe in God would insist that God believed in them!! It's like your saying that all men should be blinded.... why not, if they cast evil look at women! It's for ' personal safety and security' from the dirty gaze of men that women are demanding burqa.



Well, since you are reluctant to back your claims up with anything substantial besides your "the best of [your] experience, belief and knowledge," I guess I might as well just dismiss everything you say as anecdotal and unproven.

It's not my job to try and prove your exaggerated claims - the fact that I asked for evidence is proof enough that I don't believe much of what you say - it is your job to back up what you say, otherwise your arguments fold for lack of credibility.


the internet is full of information. Google and take the trouble to collect stats.

Take it or leave it...I have given the facts while you are just conjecturing and surmising....about your manly notions!



Why bother - most men can control themselves,

That's why 1 in 4 women are assaulted in the US!




and as said before, most sexual assault occurs between people who know each other - usually intimately -

this is more the reason for women to stay aloof from 'hawks' and hide behind hijab!



it's degrading to both men and women to suggest that unless a woman is essentially invisible (besides perhaps her hands) that she is going to get violated when she walks down the street.

Why should men feel degraded unless they suffer from some 'inferiority complex'? Most Delicate flowers have to protect themselves from burning heat of the 'sun'!

Burqa or no burqa, it's not only the 'fear' of getting violated by dirty men there is some feminine fashion involved therein. What right do men have to snatch away that right from women?

[The Atheist]

You are wrong! Women are not dumb or like little babies in the cradle who would not complain after being raped. Alleging rape is other than 'proving rape' which is open for every victim to do but rape cases are not as heinously gross here as in the US (one in four women).

You appear to be afiling to acknowledge the difference between statistical crime and actual crime. That, and the wide gulf in how the justice systems treat rape.



No woman is punished if she goes out to do shopping, attend office etc without a relative male. However, unlike the West NO stranger can come to her house and ask her to join in for a dinner or date. There is absolutely no concept of 'dating' in our culture...and if any woman dares do it and is caught she is liable not only at law but for a greater trouble on the family and social level.

I didn't say she had to have a male relative with her, but you've hit the nail on the head with the second part.

A woman dating will be punished, yet you claim the laws are to protect women from unscrupulous men. Your claim falls to bits, because if the object was to protect rather than control, the men would be punished instead.


There is no need for us to follow the West in many cultural and social matters.
For example if you kissed your wife in public you would be jailed! That's the law of the place!

My word yes; kissing my wife in public would be a sin. It would be awful for kids to see a family where the mother and father still love and respect each other. We can't allow kids to grow up thinking that kind of behaviour is normal.


A day will come when those who do not believe in God would insist that God believed in them!! It's like your saying that all men should be blinded.... why not, if they cast evil look at women! It's for ' personal safety and security' from the dirty gaze of men that women are demanding burqa.

See above; who is protecting whom?

[mazHur]

You appear to be afiling to acknowledge the difference between statistical crime and actual crime. That, and the wide gulf in how the justice systems treat rape.





I didn't say she had to have a male relative with her, but you've hit the nail on the head with the second part.

Caught dating or involved in adultery would be hell for the male as well. Try to understand, without viewing the topic through your own 'lens' only.



A woman dating will be punished, yet you claim the laws are to protect women from unscrupulous men. Your claim falls to bits, because if the object was to protect rather than control, the men would be punished instead.

Dating is unlawful. It is culturally and socially wrong. How could you imagine someone 'protecting' a 'thief' against the law? How could you unilaterally try to superimpose the liberality of your culture and laws on others? As the old adage goes, The Meat of one is poison for the other!




My word yes; kissing my wife in public would be a sin. It would be awful for kids to see a family where the mother and father still love and respect each other. We can't allow kids to grow up thinking that kind of behaviour is normal.


Instead of the word 'wife' read 'woman'.
I know how many 'girlfriends' have to be 'tried' by 'boys' before getting married and how any young girl who doesn't have a boy friend is looked down upon in the West society by men! Good girls are not that 'cheap' here to offer their cherries for trial to men without the marriage contract.




See above; who is protecting whom?

What disturbs you if women want to protect themselves in their own way from demeaning men who exploit them for their 'flesh' only! Disgracing a woman is a disgrace to humanity!

[JBI]

What disturbs you if women want to protect themselves in their own way from demeaning men who exploit them for their 'flesh' only! Disgracing a woman is a disgrace to humanity!

What if women wish to, as is normal, gain physical gratification from sexual relations with men they aren't seriously involved with? How is that a disgrace to humanity - you act as if human sexuality is such a repulsive thing, but the drastically high birthrate in such countries shows that sex is clearly occuring - the difference is, it is being restricted, thereby limited to the sphere of married life - a woman loses the control of her sexuality, due to it being subject to the whim of her husband - the actual disgrace then is artificially created, as a means of ensuring sexually liberal acts, such as consensual pre-marital/cohabital/casual sexual relations are deemed filthy, as apposed to what they really are, perhaps pleasureful (we should hope that women in such countries receive pleasure from sex). You seem to put the emphasis too highly on sex as a form of reproduction, in contrast to the concept of sex for the practice of having an orgasm, which generally would seem to be the sexually natural form of fornication - the removal of the orgasm from this equation then, restricts the sexual practice, in the woman's case, as a mere means of perpetuating blood-lines - it is no wonder than, that you cannot understand the notion of sex-for-pleasure, when quite simply, you have completely removed pleasure, on the woman's part at least, from the equation.

[mazHur]

What if women wish to, as is normal, gain physical gratification from sexual relations with men they aren't seriously involved with? How is that a disgrace to humanity - you act as if human sexuality is such a repulsive thing, but the drastically high birthrate in such countries shows that sex is clearly occuring - the difference is, it is being restricted, thereby limited to the sphere of married life - a woman loses the control of her sexuality, due to it being subject to the whim of her husband - the actual disgrace then is artificially created, as a means of ensuring sexually liberal acts, such as consensual pre-marital/cohabital/casual sexual relations are deemed filthy, as apposed to what they really are, perhaps pleasureful (we should hope that women in such countries receive pleasure from sex). You seem to put the emphasis too highly on sex as a form of reproduction, in contrast to the concept of sex for the practice of having an orgasm, which generally would seem to be the sexually natural form of fornication - the removal of the orgasm from this equation then, restricts the sexual practice, in the woman's case, as a mere means of perpetuating blood-lines - it is no wonder than, that you cannot understand the notion of sex-for-pleasure, when quite simply, you have completely removed pleasure, on the woman's part at least, from the equation.

O man! If a woman was not sexually gratified we Muslims wouldn't go for as many as 4 women at a time!!
Chaste women observe fidelity enjoy sex with their husbands and vice versa , this is what is embodied in our culture and Islam. If you want to seek extra- sexual pleasure then you may resort to sinning by violating the religious code and satiating your sexual whims through prostitutes and perverts. The world is full of them too. Deflowering nice girls as 'try outs' is a curse on humanity and that's why too much of Western population is not a product of marital act. If sex and orgasm had to be 'cheapened' the way you wanted what would be the difference between humans and animals??

[JBI]

O man! If a woman was not sexually gratified we Muslims wouldn't go for as many as 4 women at a time!!
Chaste women observe fidelity enjoy sex with their husbands and vice versa , this is what is embodied in our culture and Islam. If you want to seek extra- sexual pleasure then you may resort to sinning by violating the religious code and satiating your sexual whims through prostitutes and perverts. The world is full of them too. Deflowering nice girls as 'try outs' is a curse on humanity and that's why too much of Western population is not a product of marital act. If sex and orgasm had to be 'cheapened' the way you wanted what would be the difference between humans and animals??

But you raise an interesting problem - if a girl is married off as a virgin at a young age, how can she possibly know anything about sex, or sexual gratification - we are assuming masturbation is illegal as well, and the young age of marriage will pretty much cancel her attempts - but where is the healthy sexuality for the sake of sexuality? The whole notion of deflowering as "cheapening" is kind of silly - the emphasis put on the blood stain appearing on a sheet controls the sexuality of a woman, and limits it to the confines of a marital bed, and only a marital bed - you look at that as a virtue, I look at that as a denial of the bodily - a denial of a fundamental human aspect - sexuality.

[mazHur]

But you raise an interesting problem - if a girl is married off as a virgin at a young age, how can she possibly know anything about sex, or sexual gratification - we are assuming masturbation is illegal as well, and the young age of marriage will pretty much cancel her attempts - but where is the healthy sexuality for the sake of sexuality? The whole notion of deflowering as "cheapening" is kind of silly - the emphasis put on the blood stain appearing on a sheet controls the sexuality of a woman, and limits it to the confines of a marital bed, and only a marital bed - you look at that as a virtue, I look at that as a denial of the bodily - a denial of a fundamental human aspect - sexuality.

O boy! Who do you think a 'young girl' is? Of course we are NOT discussing children, are we?

Under 18 marriage is illegal here for women. However, here women are seen to get married between the age of 20 to 25, but at lower age in backward or tribal areas.
There is no law on masturbation in Pakistan but 'masturbation' as such is not reported and merely a hidden 'personal affair'. However, it is considered bad socially and culturally because the philosophy behind sexuality in Islamic countries is that as soon as you cannot live without 'sex' get married. Extra-marital sex is forbidden at law and religion. It may not be the case in Canada or the West but where it is it is!

What do you mean by 'healthy sexuality'?? Why do you think women are mere tools for providing relentless sexual pleasure to men without any code of life?? Spend money, sin, if you want extra pleasure---the world is full of professional women who can turn you madder than mad and leave you a broke!



the emphasis put on the blood stain appearing on a sheet controls the sexuality of a woman, and limits it to the confines of a marital bed, and only a marital bed

this is nonsense. I never stated this. You are again surmising and conjecturing.....emphasizing 'superstitions' not in any way related to burqa or the edicts of Islam!

[mazHur]

Why Dress Modestly?
September 11th, 2009 | Author: Tiffany

Modest dress is a big issue for me… But it was a long road getting to this point.

Obviously, there are a lot of aspects of dressing modestly that I will be talking about over time. Let me just begin here by sharing with you a little bit about my journey to this point.

The history:

* When I walked into the church the day I got saved (a 31 year-old single mom), I was wearing skintight jeans, engineer boots, a Dickies mechanic shirt, and a leather motorcycle jacket.
* My favorite outfit for going out to watch my “rock star” friends perform at Hollywood nightclubs was a “school-girl” outfit: plaid micro-mini skirt, black go-go boots, black bra, white blouse tied across my midriff…
* I was a fitness competitor, personal trainer, bikini model, and bit-part actress whose main claim to fame was my six-pack abs.

Yeah, I’m serious.

So when I discuss the issues of the “practicality” of pants over skirts, or what kind of men you attract with your attire, I know whereof I speak.

After I accepted Christ, my attitude began to change. Not all at once, by a long shot.

I wanted to honor God in His house, and began wearing only dresses to church. (When I say a “dress,” I include a skirt and top in that group for this discussion)

As I hungered for knowledge of the Word, and fellowship of other believers, I began to have questions about some of the things I was reading.

For instance…

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. – 1 Timothy 2:9-10

I became more and more conscious of the fact that it was impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with a man while wearing something that invited his eyes to look somewhere other than my face – never mind the fact that the men who wanted to talk to me when I was dressed like that weren’t the good Christians, potential husband/father types that I was now looking for.

More modest dressing was the first step. I ditched the minis, the cleavage, the midriff-baring, and the form-fitting. I was quite modest, by all of our society’s standards.

It took several years, and marriage to a wonderful Christian man, to even begin to wonder about the next stage.

What do you do with this verse?

A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the Lord, your God. – Deuteronomy 22:5

We all agree that men shouldn’t wear dresses. So why is it not obvious that women shouldn’t wear pants?

In a debate that includes dress, hair length, and more, Wolf and I came to the conculsion that if I see someone from across the parking lot, I want to be able to tell immediately what gender they are.

Most people’s reponse to this aspect of the issue is that “society has changed” and “pants are women’s clothing now, too.” I disagree, on several counts. Read on.

Sarah has some great thoughts on feminine dress, posted at Preparing Daughters. In part, she explains,

We have several reasons why I wear dresses only. The main reason is not to defraud men with the way I dress. If a lady wears pants, a man’s eyes are drawn to a part of her body they should not be drawn to. This can cause a man to have impure thoughts. The same thing with tight, revealing tops or low-necked blouses. We have heard some say, “But he is responsible for his thoughts!” Yes, that is true, but it is also our responsibility as a godly woman to dress in a way that would not provoke those thoughts. Would you be willing to deny yourself the “pleasure” of dressing the way you want to help a brother in Christ? “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Corinthians 8:13). We could paraphrase it and say, “If a certain type of clothing make my brother to offend, I will not dress that way…”

Another reason we wear dresses is to appear distinctly feminine. Compare a girl wearing pants to a girl wearing a dress! Who looks more feminine? Clearly it’s the girl in a dress! We know some like to think that they have cute feminine pants, but pants are still men’s clothing in our day.

I particularly like the questions posed at Mom of 9’s Place (she has full, descriptive answers posted there!), as a summary “checklist” of the above arguments, and more:

* IS IT WORN BY THE OPPOSITE SEX?
* WHAT DOES IT MAKE OTHERS THINK OF ME?
* PREDOMINATELY, WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE DRESS THAT WAY?
* MUST I USE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE WORLD TO JUSTIFY IT?
* WILL IT CAUSE OTHERS TO STUMBLE?

“Will it cause others to stumble”, also mentioned above, is a big, big thing. I suppose that’s a post unto itself just waiting to happen.

And of course, using the arguments of the world to justify our actions is just plain crazy.

“Everyone does it”! Are they serious?

Well gosh.

“Everyone” these days is getting divorced, engaging in pre-marital intimacy, speeding on the freeway, cheating on their taxes… So those are all okay?

What do even the most worldly parents say to kids who use that as an excuse?

If all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

How much more so for a people who are supposed to be “set apart,” and to be “salt and light” in the world?

So, in our house, the men dress like men and the women dress like women.

J and I do not even own anything other than modestly-long dresses (including jumpers, skirts, etc.). We don’t wear shirts that have logos or printing across the chest.

Yes, we’re even working on modesty while swimming.

Now I suppose we should have another look at the issue of women covering their hair…


http://www.as-for-my-house.com/2009/09/why-dress-modestly/

[Nightshade]

Ok I have an admition to make now, Ive actually been swung to lean towards the wow Burka's really can ( note can depends on context etc) be opressive just by their exsistance view. Not convinced on the Hijab though.

Anyway here is a point Ive been thinking of if we concider that the burka is 'protection' in that it allows you to blend into the background then to return to teh OP it follows that in the West wearing the Burka is self defeating.
Ive said it before and I will day it again I do not belive that i is an Ismalic requirment to even wear a Hijab, provided you are dressed in such a fashion as to show off how beautiful and amazing you are ( humility, vanity, pride all that lot) then its all grand. BUt to return to my point if wearing the muslim veil and I mean this in all points is to protect from harassment and and being the centre of attention. Then it SHOULDN't be worn in the west. Because unlike in cultures where you automatically stand out and thus become a focus point/ eye catching wearing it in the West does that. And yu do get harassed by all sorts of people.

So if protection from eyes is the reason to wear it then surley it would be more effective not to wear it and dress 'modestly' ie not skin tight with cleavege, belly, thong and thighs hanging out. OH and flashing knickers left right and centre. That way you dont attract attention either by being 'enticing' or by being a sore thumb.

Course thast not why I wear my hijjab to me ite more a form of self expression akin to my sisters' multicoloured mohawk, multiple ear piercings, tedancy to wear odd shoes, patterened nail polish ( these are not all the same sister though boy if it was she'd be a sight and a half)

[mazHur]

[QUOTE]in the West wearing the Burka is self defeating.


this may be a feeling of the minority..
a cultural oddity
I don't think the mormons feel the same way in Utah?



I do not belive that i is an Ismalic requirment to even wear a Hijab, provided you are dressed in such a fashion as to show off how beautiful and amazing you are ( humility, vanity, pride all that lot) then its all grand.

Islam doesn't prescribe any kind of dress for women. It just requires women to observe modesty and cover their femininity and adornments. If any dress can do that so much the better.


if wearing the muslim veil and I mean this in all points is to protect from harassment and and being the centre of attention. Then it SHOULDN't be worn in the west. Because unlike in cultures where you automatically stand out and thus become a focus point/ eye catching wearing it in the West does that. And yu do get harassed by all sorts of people.


This sounds like a reasonable explanation...
a minority such as women in burqa or hijab can be 'self-inducive' of people's attention. But does this mean that Muslim women should give up their religious duty towards covering up their femininity and adornments in foreign non-Muslim countries?
Sikhs as men have denied to give up their religious duty to cover their heads with turban and could be seen all around the world with turbans on their heads, then why be Muslim women be required to feel so feebler and peculiar in this regard?


So if protection from eyes is the reason to wear it then surley it would be more effective not to wear it and dress 'modestly'

this evidences the cultural problem faced by Muslim women in the West.
Some women do seem to feel 'awkward' with burqa in an unusual environment but does that mean they should leave their own 'right' or 'duty' for the sake of majority?
Would that mean that a cow-worshipping Hindu would be compelled to slaughter cows and eat beef in an alien environment where majority took pork??

[Nightshade]

Islam doesn't prescribe any kind of dress for women. It just requires women to observe modesty and cover their femininity and adornments. If any dress can do that so much the better.

I am aware of that, which is why I hold that it all cultural more than religious.




This sounds like a reasonable explanation...
a minority such as women in burqa or hijab can be 'self-inducive' of people's attention. But does this mean that Muslim women should give up their religious duty towards covering up their femininity and adornments in foreign non-Muslim countries?
Sikhs as men have denied to give up their religious duty to cover their heads with turban and could be seen all around the world with turbans on their heads, then why be Muslim women be required to feel so feebler and peculiar in this regard?


Look I am not going into the argument except tha even though I wear a hijjab and am a practising muslim I do not belive it isa religious duty or requirment, I belive it is deeply cultural but also can often act as an aid or backup to the wearer in being happy wiyh the decisions made , in my personal experiance.



this evidences the cultural problem faced by Muslim women in the West.
Some women do seem to feel 'awkward' with burqa in an unusual environment but does that mean they should leave their own 'right' or 'duty' for the sake of majority?
Would that mean that a cow-worshipping Hindu would be compelled to slaughter cows and eat beef in an alien environment where majority took pork??

Look mezhur, yu ae not a woman and you don't live in the west and you don't wear a hijab, and lets face it the hijjab is the least 'offensive' to west sesabilities of all the dress, whether this is the correct attitude to have or not is irelevant in this point . Because freedom of speach and expression is a fallacy, oh societyis trying o fix it but you will never have 100% freedom for 100% of the population becasue one persons freedom comes at the expense of another far too often.

My point is this I have been 'harrassed' more than once because of being so blatantly muslim, and once or twice I have actually been properly scared, just a couple of hours ago I was seriously concidering takin off my hijab and I hiding it in my bag and carrying on without it as I had accidentlywondered into an area that is known for assults ( to the point of hospitalisation) on anyone different. And by different I mean gingers, goths, emos, 'pretty' boys,gays, skiny lanky people, let alone people of differngt race or religion. I ddidn't but that was because I realised that there were too many people around and I can walk double fast when I need to.

Where is the protection of the hijjab if I end up in hospital? I know, I know God will protect me, but God helps those who help themselves and deliberatly flirting with danger is hardly smart or sensible!

[mazHur]

QUOTE=Nightshade;


Look mezhur, yu ae not a woman and you don't live in the west and you don't wear a hijab, and lets face it the hijjab is the least 'offensive' to west sesabilities of all the dress, whether this is the correct attitude to have or not is irelevant in this point . Because freedom of speach and expression is a fallacy, oh societyis trying o fix it but you will never have 100% freedom for 100% of the population becasue one persons freedom comes at the expense of another far too often.

My point is this I have been 'harrassed' more than once because of being so blatantly muslim, and once or twice I have actually been properly scared, just a couple of hours ago I was seriously concidering takin off my hijab and I hiding it in my bag and carrying on without it as I had accidentlywondered into an area that is known for assults ( to the point of hospitalisation) on anyone different. And by different I mean gingers, goths, emos, 'pretty' boys,gays, skiny lanky people, let alone people of differngt race or religion. I ddidn't but that was because I realised that there were too many people around and I can walk double fast when I need to.

Where is the protection of the hijjab if I end up in hospital? I know, I know God will protect me, but God helps those who help themselves and deliberatly flirting with danger is hardly smart or sensible!

Shade, I am sorry to hear all that. As you have a genuine reason ie apprehension of life in a non-Muslim country, Islam permits you to do away with your hijab to keep yourself safe. However, this apprehension could not have been occured to you in an Islamic state or even non-Islamic state such as India or Sri Lanka and in case someone had tried to molest you held have had it. I can but only deplore the mentality of those who torment you that way in the so -called 'civilized nations'! What are they doing with their law and justice-just controlling traffic and issuing tickets??

[JBI]

Shade, I am sorry to hear all that. As you have a genuine reason ie apprehension of life in a non-Muslim country, Islam permits you to do away with your hijab to keep yourself safe. However, this apprehension could not have been occured to you in an Islamic state or even non-Islamic state such as India or Sri Lanka and in case someone had tried to molest you held have had it. I can but only deplore the mentality of those who torment you that way in the so -called 'civilized nations'! What are they doing with their law and justice-just controlling traffic and issuing tickets??

Look, she has already stated that she believes the Hijab to function as a source of cultural association, rather than as a religious obligation for women - in that sense, God has nothing to do with her choices, and it isn't god who is going to forgive her, as, according to what she has just said, she does not believe Islam requires women to wear a Burqa - the taking it off for the sake of freedom then, has nothing to do with God, as god, according to her believe, as stated above, does not require, or expect women to wear a hijab, as, stated above, it is a cultural requirement (need I use bold text?).

{edit}

I'm not English, so I cannot comment on the state of things there, but you completely miss the point - the point was, that the hijab, or the Burka, in the case of England, and the neighbourhood she was frequenting, did not, and does not function as a protective device against assault, and in fact, can increase the likelihood, as she has mentioned from anecdotal evidence - in other words, she completely tossed out your argument in respect to the values of Western society, instead of, as you chose to interpret things, decry that the West is bigoted, and backwards, and forces her to go against her God's commandments.

[AlaskaDan]

If there truly is a God, does anyone really believe that he cares at all what you are wearing or if you shaved today or what your hair style is like?

Wouldn't a God care more what kind of person you were or how you treated other people?

[Farah786]

the burkha and the nikab and the headscarf are very different from one another. The nikab is covering the face. The burkha is the loose kinda of coat worn ontop of the clothing. The headscarf if just a headscarf, some larger than others, i.e. some worn over the top and back of body, some just covering the hair and neck, and some just covering the hair and tied up at head or at back.

[The Atheist]

This is worth adding into the mix:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-wearing-the-burqa-is-neither-islamic-nor-socially-acceptable-1743375.html)

[mazHur]

This is worth adding into the mix:

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Wearing the burqa is neither Islamic nor socially acceptable. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-wearing-the-burqa-is-neither-islamic-nor-socially-acceptable-1743375.html)


<<<<We communicate with each other with our faces<<<<<<

Well, that's funny! She reminds me of supine pose as explained in Kama Sutra :sigh:
I only knew humans communicated through their 'EYES' !!....and eyes are not hidden by the burqa!

Will someone ask her what does her 'Shia Islam' say about Purdah and is she being loyal to her FAITH by complying with the edict there??

She writes like a grade 5 school girl who has little knowledge about the religion she confesses to believe in. Almost the whole of Iran is Shia...even women cover themselves up there. What kinda Muslim she is?? Is she even a woman?? Ha , she doesn't like the scarf, the burqa, etc even as a fashion...that's okay, but why try to criticize those women who like it or try to malign their attire with flimsy reasoning??

God Save Islam
Muslims are out of their minds!


I've worked in the Middle East for the last 15 years but must honestly say that because of the formal/cultural separation of the sexes it would be hard to get a first hand female's perspective on this subject
In Saudi its very strict, but then on occasion when flying out from the Kingdom to the UK, the speed with which the Saudi women change into Western dress once airborn is quite something.
In Iran, its quite strict in public, but then when invited to an Iranian's house for a meal, its quite normal to sit down with the wife without the burka & head scarf and hold a normal discussion face to face. Unheard of in Saudi hospitality, where you sit with the man only and then ask him to thank his wife for the nice meal.
I think that here in Qatar, they have found the right balance. Head scarfs, covered arms, sharp but modest dressing.
Not sure if that helps.

you are pretty right. This is what Darwinian's call ADAPTILITY or ADAPTATION !!

[The Atheist]

I have to say, this smacks of the worst kind of defensiveness, because you're wrong in so many places.


Well, that's funny! She reminds me of supine pose as explained in Kama Sutra :sigh:

Where does this come from?

How could Yasmin Alibhai-Brown possibly remind you of the Kama Sutra?

She is 60 years old and there isn't even a photo with the article. The images of Yasmin available online are professional head shots, as one would expect of an author.


I only knew humans communicated through their 'EYES' !!....and eyes are not hidden by the burqa!

Humans only communicate through their eyes?

What?


Will someone ask her what does her 'Shia Islam' say about Purdah and is she being loyal to her FAITH by complying with the edict there??

Did you read the article? Of course she isn't obeying purdah rules. Why would she? Whether she's loyal to her faith is pretty obvious. She may have a different view to you, but her loyalty is unquestionable. Especially if you read the article.


She writes like a grade 5 school girl who has little knowledge about the religion she confesses to believe in.

This is a pretty odd way to attack an accomplished author, especially in the light of the article, which is extremely well written, mature, and nothing less than diametrically opposite to what a 5 year old would write like.

That you dismiss her religious knowledge is interesting, because she barely mentions it in the article, so it another meaningless, and purely defensive, attack.


Almost the whole of Iran is Shia...even women cover themselves up there.

Your point being?

She does note that in the piece...


What kinda Muslim she is?? Is she even a woman??

Pretty easy to find out the answers to those questions.


Ha , she doesn't like the scarf, the burqa, etc even as a fashion...that's okay, but why try to criticize those women who like it or try to malign their attire with flimsy reasoning??

Which flimsy reasoning is that?

[caddy_caddy]

Burka and the like is Islam in its extreme ; it's a threat , symbol of fear . For that reason westerners feel urged to eliminate it from their societies unlike other symbols they don't fear .I think we should try our best to reduce fear and build some trust between each other

In our societes it's sometimes a symbol of suppression . In this case change should arise from the society itself .At other times it is a symbol of very special relation with God . Women who wear it are reconciled with themselves and so proud of it . We cannot judge unless we can ask this very woman how does she feel about herself .


This is an immensly complicated topic. Here in Denmark, in line with increasing racism, it seems to have taken great proportions. At this point, it is now forbidden for women wearing simply a hijab, the headscarf, to rule in court. This was decided as a young woman as the first managed to complete the degree, in spite of all odds. Ridiculous.
I think it is important to remember that the bhurka, Hijab, etc, are not just religious symbols, but also cultural. I would never wear one, but I do think it is important to allow women who wish to wear one that right. Instead of outlawing it, one can assist those whom find it difficult to stop wearing one for social or family related reasons.
While I'm atheist I think its silly to ban religious symbols, as they are a part of our cultures, and our religions, or non-religions are a part of who we are. Instead I would argue that society should put its time and money into teaching tolerance and informing about the benefits of multidiversity.
Great and fair .

Niamh and Nighshade -- you said that hijab is cultural not religious . Hijab is religious and mandatory . Women who do not wear it are considered sinners and will be punished , so why God would punish us for sth He does not command ??
God is just and He won't punish us for something cultural .
I think it is sth very important every one should know .

[mazHur]

I have to say, this smacks of the worst kind of defensiveness, because you're wrong in so many places.


Or, alternatively, Yasmin's views smack of '' the worst kind of defensiveness, because she's wrong in so many places''



Where does this come from?

How could Yasmin Alibhai-Brown possibly remind you of the Kama Sutra?

She is 60 years old and there isn't even a photo with the article. The images of Yasmin available online are professional head shots, as one would expect of an author.

''face to face'' communication is not correct...there are many ways of communication, why doesn't she refer to them or any other form of 'body language' ---??



Humans only communicate through their eyes?

What?


First love is always through the EYES. Ever heard of love at first sight??



Did you read the article?

I surfed it but was disgusted to read further.


Of course she isn't obeying purdah rules. Why would she? Whether she's loyal to her faith is pretty obvious. She may have a different view to you, but her loyalty is unquestionable. Especially if you read the article.

Purdah is commanded by the Quran. If she doesn't believe in Quranic injunctions regarding Purdah I doubt if she is a Muslim. The rules for Purdah may differ but it is a must for every Muslim woman!!
For men the Purdah is to keep their eyes down, look down, and do not intentionally look at women!







This is a pretty odd way to attack an accomplished author, especially in the light of the article, which is extremely well written, mature, and nothing less than diametrically opposite to what a 5 year old would write like.

I am not interested in her 'style or syntax', it's her thoughts that are 'revolting' and incorrect which are objectionable.
Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen are better writers than her but condemned for their profanity in distorting Muslim faith.


That you dismiss her religious knowledge is interesting, because she barely mentions it in the article, so it another meaningless, and purely defensive, attack.

From her name I can figure out that she belongs to which sect of Muslims and how that sect views Islam. By all other sects of Islam they are NOT even recognized as true Muslims because of their deviations from fundamental beliefs of Islam




Your point being?

She does note that in the piece...



Pretty easy to find out the answers to those questions.



Which flimsy reasoning is that?

My point is clear as I stated above regarding Purdah.
Also, as she seems to be a westernized her views are not acceptable as malignant, wayward and smacking of prompting Muslim women from violating Quranic Injunctions to suit her sectarian beliefs and motives which are not acceptable for other Muslims.

She is 60, okay, but still younger than me!!LOL

[The Atheist]

Or, alternatively, Yasmin's views smack of '' the worst kind of defensiveness, because she's wrong in so many places''

No, that would be silly, because she's attacking, not defending.


''face to face'' communication is not correct...there are many ways of communication, why doesn't she refer to them or any other form of 'body language' ---??

Because it is nowhere near as important as the face in communication.


First love is always through the EYES. Ever heard of love at first sight??

that may well be the case in your culture since the eyes are the only visible part, but I can assure you, it wasn't the eyes that attracted me to my wife.


I surfed it but was disgusted to read further.

Purdah is commanded by the Quran. If she doesn't believe in Quranic injunctions regarding Purdah I doubt if she is a Muslim. The rules for Purdah may differ but it is a must for every Muslim woman!!
For men the Purdah is to keep their eyes down, look down, and do not intentionally look at women!

Why not?

What is so wrong about looking at women?

I have to say that your attitude displays exactly why she sees it as wrong. It's all about control, which may have been fine in 1210, but most of the world sees it as wrong in 2010.

I trust your religion doesn't have the christian "free will" covenant with the god.

[mazHur]

]No, that would be silly, because she's attacking, not defending.

sorry, transpositional error ...it should read ''offensive''


Because it is nowhere near as important as the face in communication.

you can't say that.
Why do men want to see their whole visage when any person can be recognized through his/her eyes? I can recognize a woman from a mile, veiled or not.!!

I am not for face covering, though.....because I think it is not required by the Quran. Must is that women should cover their bosoms and hide their 'adornments' from public view. Am not sure if cheek, lips and eyes and forehead also fall in the 'adornment' class?



that may well be the case in your culture since the eyes are the only visible part, but I can assure you, it wasn't the eyes that attracted me to my wife.

With Romeo and Juliet this was not the case, even with me this was not the case. Love enters the soul through the eyes....and humans, unlike animals who use their noses (smell) to assess their females, use the sense of touch to 'familiarise'!! :sigh:










Why not?
What is so wrong about looking at women?

It is forbidden by faith...

Looking at a woman is not forbidden if it is in routine...but if you specifically look or stare or ogle at a women is BAD!! It's the same in your culture....




I have to say that your attitude displays exactly why she sees it as wrong.


She is wrong because she is talking against her Faith..and I don't like hypocrites who confess a faith yet talk bull**** against it or try to stall self-seeking innovations or whims in it. Islam is not like the Bible that you can make any number of versions of it...the Living Quran stays unaltered and the same Quran is read everywhere in the world by all Muslims since more than 1400 years!! It is also the most widely read book in the world!


It's all about control, which may have been fine in 1210, but most of the world sees it as wrong in 2010.

control is as if you are referring to chattels or traffic control. No...every body has a different degree of control, human nature. Hence it is better to control all by commanding them to keep their looks down!
I knkow you won't realize this unless you 'enjoyed the pleasures of living in a poor Muslim country replete with corruption and feudalism. thus Islam preaches UNIversal security to men and women and its command are not only for developed countries, which are controlled by laws, but also extend to backward countries where human laws are weak or non existant.




I trust your religion doesn't have the christian "free will" covenant with the god.[/QUOTE]

What is Christian free will?? Is it the free will to condemn their own religion and make mockery of their Biblical elders?? If so we Muslims are forbidden to do that....we are also forbidden to talk ill of any religion, incl Christianity, and Judaism. we are also commanded to believe in Bible, torah Talmus and all scriptures and all prophet and no Muslim, unlike Christians or Jews, can even dare to tall ill of them...if he does he would be committing a major sin.

[motherhubbard]

This is off topic, but is related. I was at a theme park the other day and there was a group of young mid eastern men. Let me tell you, they were BEAUTIFUL! They were so beautiful I looked away and spent a great deal of thought on why these men did not have to cover up to keep from tempting the women around them. I know it's not commanded, but the point is to reduce temptation through modesty. Is there an assumption that men are more tempted than women?

[mazHur]

This is off topic, but is related. I was at a theme park the other day and there was a group of young mid eastern men. Let me tell you, they were BEAUTIFUL! They were so beautiful I looked away and spent a great deal of thought on why these men did not have to cover up to keep from tempting the women around them. I know it's not commanded, but the point is to reduce temptation through modesty. Is there an assumption that men are more tempted than women?

No, I don't think so but if you are not married and feel temptation for a handsome man you are free to propose him for marriage.
But if you are already married you can't do that. Not only that would amount to infidelity but also lechery and you might be knowing that debauchery or promiscuity is strictly forbidden in Islam and those who commit it face a 'bloody' tune!!

[motherhubbard]

No, I don't think so but if you are not married and feel temptation for a handsome man you are free to propose him for marriage.
But if you are already married you can't do that. Not only that would amount to infidelity but also lechery and you might be knowing that debauchery or promiscuity is strictly forbidden in Islam and those who commit it face a 'bloody' tune!!

That is not my point. It's my understanding that women are commanded to do this for two reasons- to preserve their chasity and to prevent men from being tempted. Men try not to look, but women cover themselves. Why do the men not need to worry about tempting women?

[caddy_caddy]

I think the article is more about the right of unveiled or modern women to have their own space in an Islamic society which I'm ok with it .. By the end of the article she said that their veils are walls that keep them in and us out . I can understand her ends but not her means . She's trying to break this wall, the veil and other walls , by saying it is not Islamic . I don't wear the veil but I don't say it is not Islamic . I know I'm committing a sin and I'm responsible of my choice .
I think making the argument religious by saying is not Islamic is a mistake because she has to support her argument with the Qura'n , Hadeeth and the consensus of the clerics . Yet I do agree with her on what she said about imposing cloaks and headscarfs on children .

children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves ("so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing," said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls' school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.
This is too much and very cruel .It is not Islamic , cultural . Unless the girl gets her period she not supposed to wear the veil .

[JBI]

I think the article is more about the right of unveiled or modern women to have their own space in an Islamic society which I'm ok with it .. By the end of the article she said that their veils are walls that keep them in and us out . I can understand her ends but not her means . She's trying to break this wall, the veil and other walls , by saying it is not Islamic . I don't wear the veil but I don't say it is not Islamic . I know I'm committing a sin and I'm responsible of my choice .
I think making the argument religious by saying is not Islamic is a mistake because she has to support her argument with the Qura'n , Hadeeth and the consensus of the clerics . Yet I do agree with her on what she said about imposing cloaks and headscarfs on children .

This is too much and very cruel .It is not Islamic , cultural . Unless the girl gets her period she not supposed to wear the veil .

Who knows though - in Canada we just had a sentencing of guilty two a father and brother who killed a 16 year old girl because she decided she didn't wish to veil herself anymore. Similarly, a woman just got arrested for trying to kill her daughter because she came home too late.

The community, even if the girl is pubescent is still restrictive in extreme circumstances. In moderate circumstance, there is probably a lot more choice. But at what point is what going on?

How much freedom do people actually have. I come from a community that really stigmatized against outsiders - non-Jewish people were shunned, and most people wouldn't talk to them. Anybody who dated one was considered violating the religion.

Of course, coming from an immigrant family, I couldn't fit there either - so I was out before high school - but the closed mindedness shows - people are brought up under circumstances that create a world that lacks dissent.

Not saying all Muslims are raised like that, but there are ones who are often at the mosque, at private schools, at after-class schools, with strong family ties, who essentially become indoctrinated by age 2, and stay that way, to be married off young, and repeat the cycle.

If people at home view you as a whore for not veiling yourself, is it really your choice? If your community has been feeding you misogynist, rhetoric calling you filthy if you do not do as the religion dictates is something really your choice?

It implies a great deal of paralysis.

Now, you regard yourself as sinning, to the quoted poster, for not following. The fact that you need to view yourself as somehow sinful is in itself rather unhealthy, and shows the signs of the indoctrination.

[mazHur]

That is not my point. It's my understanding that women are commanded to do this for two reasons- to preserve their chasity and to prevent men from being tempted. Men try not to look, but women cover themselves. Why do the men not need to worry about tempting women?

It's natural for men too to get worried about tempting women. In that case if the woman is not married he can propose her but if she is married 'he should run for the hills!""


[QUOTE=The Atheist;910587]I have to say, this smacks of the worst kind of defensiveness, because you're wrong in so many places.




How could Yasmin Alibhai-Brown possibly remind you of the Kama Sutra?

She is 60 years old and there isn't even a photo with the article. The images of Yasmin available online are professional head shots, as one would expect of an author.

msg snipped...........



just received these comment from a UK citizen.......


yes.....yasmin alibhai-brown (it looks like she has kept her
maiden name by hyphenating the maiden/married names,
which is considered as being really posh if you have a hyphenated
surname). She works for the independent newspaper and comes
regularly on various tv debates relating to iran, afghanisation, pakistan,
israel and other issues such as ninja's etc. I dont like her reporting as
she tends to side-track other debaters by continuously enforcing her
thoughts and not allowing the other person to project their views.

[ennison]

Most faces are ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons. Hiding them for faith reasons is childish.

[mazHur]

I was wonder when I read your post what a burka really looks like. If it includes a piece of veil that covers a woman's face and a long dress, it sounds like a pretty dress for women. However if it covers a woman's face with a piece of cloth, which spreads from a woman's head to her toes, it is horrible, and in opinion, degrading for women. Why will anyone want to conceal all women's faces for whatever reason that may have come to his head? If a religion teaches people to hurt someone's feelings, I am sure it is not a good religion, which only promulgates fatuous ideas.

Burqa is NOT prescribed by religion, it's just a kinda dress only.

A cycle rickshaw may sound to you ugly but it still serving the logistic requirements of millions of people in the world. You just can't hate it because you don't need it or don't like it.


Most faces are ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons. Hiding them for faith reasons is childish.

{edit}

No face is Ugly...you can't say that because you can't see them. Have your eyesight and mind checked!
Faith doesn't prescribe Burqa....it just asks women to keep their adornments out of sight of the general public ....and to men, to keep their eyes low (ie don't look at their tits!)when they 'talk' to stranger women..


If I chose to walk around naked would you accept that?

you might get screwed by kids in the EAst!!



Most faces are ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons. Hiding them for faith reasons is childish.



Most uncovered faces are most ugly and it should be compulsory to hide them for aesthetic reasons


I think the article is more about the right of unveiled or modern women to have their own space in an Islamic society which I'm ok with it .. By the end of the article she said that their veils are walls that keep them in and us out . I can understand her ends but not her means . She's trying to break this wall, the veil and other walls , by saying it is not Islamic . I don't wear the veil but I don't say it is not Islamic . I know I'm committing a sin and I'm responsible of my choice .
I think making the argument religious by saying is not Islamic is a mistake because she has to support her argument with the Qura'n , Hadeeth and the consensus of the clerics . Yet I do agree with her on what she said about imposing cloaks and headscarfs on children .

This is too much and very cruel .It is not Islamic , cultural . Unless the girl gets her period she not supposed to wear the veil .


the author of the article seems to be a so-called Muslim of the Agha khani sect who follows the orders of her Imam (Saint) Prince Aga Khan more than the Quran or anyone else in the world!! hence her every word is UNRELIABLE AND UNTRUE!!

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread is not serving its original intend anymore, it will now be closed.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone involved that preaching and religious intolerance are NOT welcome on our Forum.